MOUNT GRAHAM

RED SQUIRREL

RECOVERY PLAN

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Arizona Ecological Services State Office

Phoenix, Arizona

May 1993
MOUNT GRAHAM RED SQUIRREL

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus orahamensis

RECOVERY PLAN

Prepared by

Lesley A. Fitzpatrick, Member, Recovery Team

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Phoenix, Arizona

Genice F. Froshlich, Consultant, Recovery Team

U.S.D.A. Forest Service

Coronado National Forest

Safford, Arizona

Terry B. Johnson, Member, Recovery Team

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Phoenix, Arizona

Randall A. Smith, Leader, Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Recovery Team

U.S.D.A. Forest Service

Coronado National Forest

Tucson, Arizona

R. Barry Spicer

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Phoenix, Arizona

for

Region 2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Approved:

Date:
Disclaimer Page

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be

required to recover and/or protect the species. Plans are prepared by the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery

teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will only be

attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and

other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent

the views nor the official positions or approvals of any individuals or

agencies, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, involved in the

plan formulation. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional

Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification

as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion

of recovery tasks.

i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current Species Status: The Mount Graham red squirrel (Tamiasciurus

hudsonicus cirahamensis) is restricted to the coniferous forest areas of the

Pinaleno Mountains in southeastern Arizona. Depending upon food resources

and possibly other factors, the population experiences large fluctuations.

The current estimated maximum habitat capability is approximately 650

squirrels. During cone crop failures the estimated adult population has

been estimated to drop below 150 squirrels. Species status is unknown.

The recovery priority is SC.

Habitat Reauirements and Limiting Factors: Both food resources and habitat

suitable for winter food caches are considered limiting. General habitat

requirements include a mature forest with sufficient cone bearing trees to

provide a winter food supply. The habitat characteristics most important

for Mt. Graham red squirrel middens are foliage volume, canopy cover, log

volume, and density of large snags. The middens are usually under a closed

canopy. The closed canopy provides the cool, moist forest floor and soil

needed to preserve cones and encourage mushroom growth. The closed canopy

provides a system of interlocking branches for squirrel escape routes.

Suitable snags or cavities in live trees for Mt. Graham red squirrel nests

near the cone storage areas may also be limiting.

Obiective: To increase and stabilize the existing Mt. Graham red squirrel

population by protecting existing habitat and restoring degraded habitats.

Criteria: Recovery criteria for the Mt. Graham red squirrel have not been

determined. Due to the very restricted geographic range and low

populations, the existing population must first be increased and

stabilized. The recommended stabilization criteria is to provide

sufficient habitat to maintain a population of squirrels, never fluctuating

below 300 adults, distributed throughout the Pinaleno Mountains.

Actions Needed for stabilization

:

1. Protect and monitor existing population and habitat.

2. Determine life history and habitat parameters.

3. Reclaim previously occupied habitat.

4. Integrate species and habitat protection actions for the Pinaleno

Mountains.

Costs (SOQO)

:

Year Need 1 Need 2 Need 3 Need 4 Total

1993 66.6 140.0 62.0 71.1 340.7

1994 12.5 221.0 70.0 51.6 355.1

1995 12.5 199.0 55.0 38.3 304.8

1996 12.5 39.0 55.0 40.3 146.8

1997 12.5 39.0 55.0 38.3 144.8

1998 12.5 39.0 55.0 38.3 144.8

1999 12.5 39.0 55.0 38.3 144.8

2000 12.5 39.0 55.0 38.3 144.8

2001 12.5 39.0 55.0 38.3 144.8

2002 12.5 39.0 55.0 38.3 144.8

Total Cost

to Stabilize 179.1 833.0 572.0 432.1 2016.2

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Description

Distribution

Habitat Requirements

Foods

Population Ecology

Present Status

Reasons for Listing

Conservation Measures

Strategy for Increase and Stabilization

STABILIZATION

A. Assessment of Population Viability . .

B. Stabilization Objectives

C. Narrative Outline

LITERATURE CITED

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

APPENDICES

A. Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Habitat Management

B. List of Reviewers — Preliminary Draft

C. Public Review

D. Comments Received

E. Responses to Comments

Zones

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

1

1

1

5

9

10

13

13

15

15

18

18

23

24

29

32

34

38

39

41

158

v
I. INTRODUCTION

Red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) inhabit boreal, mixed conifer, and

deciduous forests, ranging from the northeastern United States and Canada

westward across North America to Alaska, and south through the Rocky

Mountain region into New Mexico and Arizona. In the southern part of its

range, the red squirrel is restricted to montane forests. There are

twenty—five recognized subspecies (Hall a981). This plan is for the Mt.

Graham red squirrel (~. h. arahamensis), a subspecies that was listed as an

endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as

amended) on June 3, 1987 (52 FR 20997).

The red squirrel is a small, grayish—brown arboreal rodent with a rusty to

yellowish tinge along the back (Spicer et al. 1985). The tail is fluffy

and the ears are slightly tufted in winter (Spicer et al. 1985). In

summer, a black lateral line separates the upper parts from the white

underparts. The cheek teeth number 16 (P1/1, M3/3), are low crowned and

tuberculate, and the skull is rounded, with the postorbital process present

(Hoffmeister 1986). The species ranges from 270—385 mm (10.8—15.4 in) in

total length, and from 92—158 mm (3.7-6.3 in) in tail length (Gurnell

1987). There are two recognized subspecies in Arizona (Figure 1).

Description

First described in 1894 by J. A. Allen, the Mt. Graham red squirrel type

specimen is from the Pinaleno Mountains, Graham County, Arizona. Allen

(1894) designated it as a separate subspecies based on pelage differences

and its isolation for at least 10,000 years from other populations. The

Mt. Graham red squirrel is slightly smaller than the Mogollon red squirrel

(T. h. mopollonensis), the other red squirrel found in Arizona in body

measurements, including body, hind foot, and skull length (Hoffmeister

1986). The skull is also more narrow postorbitally than that of T. h.

mociollonensis. Hoffmeister (1986) found no sexual dimorphism in

measurements of adult Mt. Graham red squirrels. Based on measurements from

ten specimens, Hoffmeister (1986) calculated an average total length of

331.5 mm (13.3 in), body length of 196.0 mm (7.8 in), and tail length of

135.5 mm (5.4 in). Average adult weight from nine specimens was 236.4 g

(8.3 oz) (Froehlich 1990).

Although Hoffmeister (1986) thought the subspecies was not strongly

differentiated from the Mogollon red squirrel, the subspecies designation

was retained by both Hall (1981) and Hoffmeister (1986). Recent research

with both protein electrophoresis (Sullivan and Yates, in press) and

mitochondrial DNA (Riddle, Yates and Lee, in press) has provided data

which in conjunction with morphological and ecological considerations, has

demonstrated that the Mt. Graham red squirrel is a distinct population that

likely deserves subspecific status.

Distribution

Found in the southernmost portion of the species’ range, the Mt. Graham red

squirrel inhabits only the Pinaleno Mountains of Graham County,

southeastern Arizona (Figure 1). Its entire range lies within the Saf ford

Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, U.S. Forest Service

(USFS). The Mt. Graham red squirrel resides in upper elevation mature to

old—growth associations in mixed conifer and spruce—fir associations above

approximately 2,425 m (8,000 ft). It may inhabit drainage bottoms where the

mixed conifer association reaches lower elevations. Historically, the Mt.

Graham red squirrel was common above 2,590 m (8,500 ft) but is currently

seldom found below 2,804 m (9,200 ft) (Spicer et al. 1985, USDA, Forest

Service, unpubi. data). As recently as the 1960s, the species ranged

1
Literature citations should read as follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Mount Graham Red Squirrel

Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque,

New Mexico. 172 pp.

Additional copies may be purchased from:

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service:

5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

301/492—6403

or

1—800—582—3421

The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.

ii
possibly as far east as Turkey Flat and as far west as West Peak but

currently is found only as far west as Clark Peak. It is believed a local

extinction occurred on West Peak, possibly due to a fire in the mid—1970s

that both isolated the West Peak subpopulation from the rest of the range

and caused losses to available habitat.

Currently, the highest densities of middens (cone debris piles used for

winter food caching) are in the upper elevation Engelmann spruce (Picea

enaelmannii) and corkbark fir (Abies lasiocarpa var. arizonica

)

associations. Lower densities of middens are found in mixed conifer stands

dominated by Douglas—fir (Psuedotsuca menziesii), with white fir (Abies

concolor) and Mexican white pine (Pinus strobiformis) sub—dominants and

little to no spruce. The transition between the two associations

occasionally contains red squirrel densities equal to those in the

spruce—fir associations [P. Young, University of Arizona (UA), unpubl.

data]. The spruce—fir is generally found at elevations above approximately

3,110 m (10,200 ft), although it extends lower on north-facing slopes. The

transition varies widely in elevation depending upon aspect but generally

grades into mixed conifer associations with little to no Engelmann spruce

and/or corkbark fir, at about 2,835 m (9,300 ft) elevation. Mixed conifer

associations extend down to approximately 2640 m (8000 ft) elevation.

The red squirrel is highly territorial (C. Smith 1968), and the concept of

one squirrel per midden is widely accepted and used for red squirrel

management (Vahle 1978). Occasionally, conditions arise where more than

one squirrel occupies a midden, or a squirrel uses more than one midden

(Froehlich 1990), but these are likely exceptional cases and usually occur

only when food is extremely abundant or rare.

In 1986 and 1987, agency and volunteer biologists participating in multiagency cooperative midden surveys systematically surveyed 1,846 ha (4,614

ac) for red squirrel middens in the Pinalenos (USDA, Forest Service 1988)

(Figure 2). Black dots on this map indicate the location of a midden.

These surveys represented 21% of the estimated 9,083 ha (22,436 ac) of

potential red squirrel habitat (the entire forest above 2,425 m [8,000 ft]

elevation). The surveys were carried out in all vegetation associations

and habitat qualities, ranging from natural meadow areas through old—growth

forest stands.

A habitat analysis (USDA Forest Service 1988) determined that only 4,750 ha

(11,733 ac) of the 9,083 ha (22,435 ac) analyzed was suitable red squirrel

habitat. Surveys in pure ponderosa pine (Pinus ~onderosa) stands did not

locate any red squirrel middens. Pure stands of ponderosa pine are

considered too open and dry to contain suitable midden locations and were

listed as having no potential as red squirrel habitat. Densities of

middens were calculated for the various vegetation associations inhabited

by red squirrels. The amount of habitat was multiplied by the midden

densities in each vegetation association for an estimated 444 total midden

areas on the mountain, both active (currently occupied) and inactive.

Habitat quality (excellent, good, fair, poor, and very poor) was then

ranked based on the midden density in each vegetation association (USDA,

Forest Service unpublished data, Coronado National Forest files).

Habitat capability was evaluated using a U. S. Forest Service (USFS)

Habitat Capability Model (HCM). That computer model produced an 1986

estimate of the existing habitat supporting up to 502 squirrels.

In 1990 and 1991, an additional 2,191 ha (5,412 ac) were intensively

searched by USFS biologists for red squirrel middens (Figure 2). As of

October 1991, a total of 549 active, inactive and abandoned midden

locations have been found in the Pinalenos (USFS unpub. data) (Figure 2).

Active middens are those currently occupied by a red squirrel. Abandoned

middens are inactive middens where all or most of the cone scale debris

3
Date of Recovery: Because the recovery requirements are not totally known,

the date to recovery can not be estimated. At least 10 years will be

needed to stabilize the Mt. Graham red squirrel population and at least 100

to 300 years will be needed to restore Mt. Graham red squirrel habitat.

iv
that forms the midden has disappeared. Criteria to determine when a midden

should be removed from the list will be identified during implementation.

Removal or addition of middens has an effect on population estimates. The

majority of red squirrel habitat (85%), in particular the more mature

forested stands, has already been surveyed. Some additional middens are

likely to be found in the 15% of the habitat that is not yet surveyed.

Most of the remaining unsurveyed area consists of either disjunct stands of

upper elevation mature conifer associations, drainage bottoms containing

pockets of mixed conifer associations, young regenerating stands, or areas

that are not currently suitable (e.g. clear cuts and fire areas that have

little to no regeneration). These areas have high future potential as red

squirrel habitat due to potential tree species composition and topography.

Many stands that currently provide no habitat for the red squirrel have

gentle slopes, are adjacent to mixed conifer stands, and have high

potential for reforestation.

Based on updated habitat and midden information from 1991, the USFS

estimated current and future habitat capability for the Pinalenos using the

HCM. The estimate showed that under optimal conditions, the existing

habitat may support approximately 650 red squirrels (USFS unpub. data).

The HCM was also used to determine future habitat capability on the

Pinalenos for red squirrels, assuming natural forest succession. Assuming

natural succession, with no catastrophic events, the model predicted that

in 200 years the habitat capability would increase to approximately 900

squirrels. Silvicultural treatments (such as planting of artificially

created clearings, thinning, and understory removal that might speed growth

of overstory trees and thus increase canopy cover) might increase the

habitat capability more quickly. In addition, natural succession will also

increase the habitat capability. However, natural or human—caused

catastrophes such as insect outbreaks, fires, and possible climatic shifts

due to global warming, may alter and affect habitat.

In 1991, approximately one—half (268) of all known middens were located

within the transition vegetation association (Table 1). The Engelmann

spruce and corkbark fir associations contain 37% (203) of the currently

known middens, located within 18% of suitable red squirrel habitat. Mixed

conifer associations, including the associated transition association,

contain 63% (346) of red squirrel middens within 82% of suitable habitat.

The transition association may vary widely in elevation, depending upon

aspect and other factors. Total areas of the transition and mixed conifer

vegetation associations have not been determined at this time.

As of 1991, 7% (39) of the currently known active and inactive middens are

located below 2,743 m (9,000 ft) elevation; 31% (171) are located between

2743 m (9,001 ft) and 2,896 m (9,500 ft); 31% (168) are located between

2,896 m (9,501 ft) and 3,048 m (10,000 ft); and 31% (171) of the known

middens are located above 3,048 m (10,000 ft).

Typically, the same midden will be used and reused in succeeding

generations of squirrels, so to some degree, the use of middens becomes

historical (Hatt 1943). However, the distribution and use of particular

middens by red squirrels is dynamic and not static. This could eventually

result in changes in the pattern of midden distribution over the mountain

range due to changes in the habitat, differences in local habitat quality,

and the behavior of the squirrels in recognition and re—occupancy of

previously used sites. Even during periods of good food supply, such as

1986 and 1990, some recorded middens have remained inactive (USDA, USFS,

unpubl. data). Conversely, some new midden sites have been created.

Kabitat Requirements

Habitat suitability for the Mt. Graham red squirrel depends on the ability

of the forest to produce reliable and adequate conifer cone crops for food

as well as microclimate conditions suitable for storage of closed cones.

5
List of Tables

Table 1. Vegetation association surrounding known

Mt. Graham red squirrel midden locations,

Pinaleno Mountains, Graham County, Arizona,

1986 through 1991

Table 2. Average physical and vegetational characteristics

of red squirrel middens (typical size of midden =

0.031 ha, 0.078 ac) in spruce—fir and transition

zone forests, Pinaleno Mountains, Arizona . .

Table 3.

Pacie

8

Original and revised population estimates for

the Mt. Graham red squirrel, Pinaleno Mountains,

Graham County, Arizona, 1986—1991 12

List of Figures

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Location of the Pinaleno Mountains and ranges

of the two subspecies of red squirrels in Arizona

Fall 1991 distribution of Mt. Graham red squirrel

middens, Pinaleno Mountains, Graham County, Arizona

Map of habitat management zones for the

Mt. Graham red squirrel

.4

37

vi
These conditions have been met in western red squirrel habitats by mature

to old—growth stands that have closed canopies (Finley 1969, Vahle 1978,

Mannan and Smith 1991). Closed canopy forests may have increased fungal

food supplies. Other elements that increase the quality of habitat are

downed logs, snags and interlocking branch networks (Froehlich 1990, Mannan

and Smith 1991). These habitat characteristics provide red squirrels with

adequate food resources, perching, storage and nesting sites, runways that

allow cone retrieval in the winter, and escape routes for avoidance of

predators (C. Smith 1968, Vahle 1978).

The Pinaleno peaks are at about 33~ north latitude, the southernmost

latitude for both the red squirrel species and the spruce—fir association.

The range also has the lowest dewpoint isohyte of red squirrel localities

(500F mean dewpoint) (USDA, Forest Service 1988), which is an indication of

low water vapor density in the atmosphere. Because of their southern

latitude, the Pinalenos experience the highest direct beam solar radiation

(insolation) of all T. hudsonicus habitats (USDA, Forest Service 1988).

High solar radiation may restrict or eliminate red squirrel use of some

vegetation types in the Pinalenos, such as the ponderosa pine belt, that

are known to be inhabited year—round in more northern latitudes (Ferner

1974). It may also increase the need for canopy closures that exceed 60%

(USDA, Forest Service 1988). Mt. Graham red squirrels may be particularly

selective about midden placement in order to avoid the negative effects of

insolation (Froehlich 1990, Mannan and Smith 1991). Canopy closure from

the top and from the side appears to be a crucial element of habitat

selection for midden sites among western subspecies of T. hudsonicus

(Halvorson 1980, Vahle and Patton 1983, Warren 1986, Mannan and Smith

1991).

Vegetation associations inhabited by the Mt. Graham red squirrel include

mixed conifer, transition, and spruce—fir. In the Pinalenos, unbroken

expanses of mature and old—growth spruce—fir, as well as old growth

Douglas—fir intermixed with Engelmann spruce or corkbark fir (transition),

appear to provide the best habitat based on 1986—1991 survey information.

Old—growth mixed conifer stands dominated by Douglas—fir and white fir also

provide habitat, although selection for midden placement may limit red

squirrel use of mixed conifer stands (Froehlich 1990).

Habitat use by Mt. Graham red squirrels varies with associations on the

Pinalenos (Froehlich 1990). In the mixed conifer association, red

squirrels appeared to select for habitat features in midden placement.

Discriminant function analysis selected slope, aspect, number of downed

logs and the presence of large snags (= 40 cm [16 in)) diameter at breast

height (dbh) near the midden as the most important features distinguishing

midden sites from random sites (Froehlich 1990). Canopy cover at midden

locations may be greater than at random locations. Habitat selection may

play a major role in midden density variation among habitat types.

Recent research has shown that Mt. Graham red squirrel midden locations in

the spruce—fir and transition associations are found in patches with

unusually dense foliage volumes and canopy cover (Mannan and Smith 1991).

Two hundred fifteen randomly selected middens and 201 randomly selected

0.01 ha plots were classified by vegetation association and compared for

forest characteristics (Table 2).

Canopy cover was >70% at 96% of all middens measured (Mannan and Smith

1991). In addition, the mean foliage volume at 24% of spruce-fir middens

and 27% of transition middens was greater than the maximum foliage volume

from all random locations, only 16% and 4%, respectively, had foliage

volumes less than the mean foliage volume at random sites within the

vegetation associations (Mannan and Smith 1991). Discriminant function

analysis selected foliage volume, canopy closure at the center of each 0.01

ha plot, log volume, and density of large snags (>40 cm, 16 in dbh) to best

distinguish midden locations from random locations in both associations

(Mannan and Smith 1991).

Mean age of dominant trees (based on increment cores taken at breast

height) averaged at midden plots in the transition association was 183

7
T.h. mogollonensis

T.h. grahamensis [flflj

Figure 1. Range of the two subspecies of red squirrels in Arizona.

2
years (Mannan and Smith 1991). Tree age at random plots in the spruce-fir

measured about the same age as trees in spruce—fir midden plots, while

trees in midden plots in the transition zone were significantly older than

the mean age of trees in random sites (Mannan and Smith 1991).

The forest of the Pinalenos have been subjected to modification, clearing,

opening, and fragmentation that has reduced suitable habitat acreage to

approximately 4,680 ha (11,700 ac) (USDA, Forest Service 1988). Of this,

only 1,093 ha (2,700 ac) is currently considered good to excellent quality,

based on habitat score cards developed by the USFS (USFS, unpubl. data).

Red squirrels rely on particularly dense stands of conifers for midden

placement within the forest. Mannan and Smith (1991) predicted that

developments that open the forest canopy, remove large trees, or reduce

amounts of dead and downed wood will reduce the number of potential middens

for red squirrels in the Pinaleno Mountains.

Red squirrels in the Pinalenos are placing middens in stands with high

canopy cover, foliage volume, and large amounts of dead and downed wood.

The same characteristics are preferred in all vegetation associations. The

mixed conifer and transition zones also have higher numbers of middens on

north and east facing slopes than expected from random (Froehlich 1990,

Mannan and Smith 1991). Management of stands should include reforestation

and/or rehabilitation of old harvest, wildfire locations and fuel breaks to

increase the amount of habitat with dense canopy cover and other old—growth

characteristics. This management should increase the habitat capability of

the Pinalenos and help ensure the continued existence of the red squirrel.

Foods

Observations from the Pinalenos indicate the foods of the Mt. Graham red

squirrel include: (1) conifer seeds from closed cones, (2) above—ground

and below—ground macro—fungi and rusts, (3) pollen (pistillate cones) and

cone buds, (4) cambium of conifer twigs, (5) bones, and (6) berries and

seeds from broadleaf trees and shrubs. Fledglings of birds, bird eggs,

mice, young rabbits, carrion, bones, juniper berries, oak acorns, aspen

seeds and ash seeds have also been reported as food items for other

subspecies of red squirrel (Warshall 1986). Each food is used seasonally:

pollen and buds in the spring; bones by females during lactation; fungi in

the spring and late summer; and closed cones low in lipids in the early

summer, and closed cones high in lipids are used for winter—time storage

(C. Smith 1968).

Although not the only influence on population size and composition, the

closed cone seed crop seems to explain more red squirrel demographics than

any other single variable (Gurnell 1987). For red squirrels in general, it

has been shown that conifer seed from stored closed cones likely influences

the length of the breeding season, number of adult females bearing two

litters, number of adult and yearling females that breed, longevity of

adults, dispersals, diet switches, and perhaps the mean, long—term density

of the population (M. Smith 1968, Rusch and Reeder 1978, Gurnell 1983,

Halvorson 1986). Millar (1970) believes food availability also influences

pre—implantation embryo losses.

In the Pinalenos, the red squirrel has been observed eating seeds and

storing cones from Engelmann spruce, white fir, Douglas—fir, corkbark fir,

and white pine. Probably due to microclimate considerations, the Mt.

Graham red squirrel use of ponderosa pine seeds or caching ponderosa pine

cones, is extremely limited. Cone caching and consumption of such seeds has

been reported in more northerly latitudes (Hatt 1943, Finley 1969, Ferner

1974). The number of mature seed trees needed to supply the red squirrels’

food needs on Mt. Graham have not been determined. A recent study of Mt.

Graham red squirrel food items (Miller 1991) indicated that nutritional

values of seeds from several conifer species in the Pinalenos vary both

seasonally and by tree species.

9
..J -%,.--

• -.

n

—~ r

_____________________________________ — ‘—-• ~‘)A’—~- — - — -- •— — ‘—. ‘•)•‘ — I..
Red squirrels breed generally from February through early April in most

populations studied. Nests can be in a tree hollow, a hollow snag, downed

log, or among understory branches of a sheltered canopy. Nests may be

built in natural hollows or in abandoned cavities made by other animals,

such as woodpeckers, and enlarged by the squirrels. Snags are important in

the Pinalenos for cone storage as well as nest location, both nest and

stored cones have been found in the same log or snag. Froehlich (1990)

found that Mt. Graham red squirrels built 60% of their nests in snags, 18%

in hollows or cavities in live trees, and 18% in logs or underground. Only

4% of nests were of the bolus grass type built among the branches of trees.

The female has only one day of fertility during each breeding period

(Flyger and Gates 1982). Individuals of some populations have begun

breeding in January (Layne 1954) and two breeding seasons per year have

been reported in a few populations (Layne 1954, C. Smith 1968, Millar 1970,

Lair 1985), including the populations in central Arizona (Uphoff 1990).

One female produced two litters during one year in the Pinalenos (Froehlich

1990). The triggering mechanism for the onset of breeding is not well

understood but has been related to the quality and quantity of the spring

bud crop on conifers (Lair 1985). It is unknown what percentage of females

might produce two litters per year.

The gestation period is 35 to 40 days (Woods 1980). Litter size ranges

from two to eight, with a mode of three to five (see USDA, Forest Service

1988). Hoffmeister’s (1986) analysis of one female Mt. Graham red squirrel

indicated that Mt Graham red squirrels may have three young/litter.

Warshall (1986) observed one mother with three young. Froehlich (1990)

observed eight litters in 1988 and 1989, with one to five young surviving

into the fall. In 1990, researchers with the University of Arizona Red

Squirrel Monitoring Program observed six litters, with a mean of 2.7 (range

2—3) young at emergence from the nest. In 1991, these researchers reported

six litters in which young had emerged (mean 2.5 young, range 1—4) by

June 30, 1991.

First reproduction for females occurs after their first winter. The

proportion of yearling and adult squirrels that breed varies widely from

year to year. Rusch and Reeder (1978) and Wood (1967) found “yearling”

reproductive rates (number of yearling females producing young) to vary

from 24% to 88%. Yearling rates were always lower than adult female rates.

After the second winter, all squirrels are considered adults. The

proportion of adult females that breed varies widely from year to year.

The proportion that produce two litters/year is likely to be highly

variable. The proportion of juvenile and adult females that breed each

year is unknown for the Mt. Graham red squirrel.

Survival rates of the Mt. Graham red squirrel are unknown. Halvorson and

Engeman (1983), Busch and Reeder (1978), and Kemp and Keith (1970)

generally agree that massive mortality occurs between weaning and first

reproduction (“winterkill”), followed by a plateau in adult mortality,

ending in an increased mortality in older age classes. Survival rates vary

markedly over years, presumably related to the supply of closed cones

available for storage (1-lalvorson and Engeman 1983). The semi—annual midden

population estimate conducted by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS), USFS, and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) may give some

indication of over—winter mortality trends, but more direct research is

needed. The red squirrel monitoring program currently being conducted by

the University of Arizona and other future research may help clarify the

population ecology of the Mt. Graham red squirrel.

Although little is known about the population ecology of the Mt. Graham red

squirrel, the total population size has been estimated. The population

size has been estimated thirteen times (Table 3). Originally, the average

occupancy rate for all middens was multiplied by the estimated number of

middens of the mountain, 444 (USDA, Forest Service 1988). In the fall of

1990, different occupancy rates for each vegetation association were used.

11
Table 1. Vegetation association surro.ziding knoim Mt. Graham red squirrel midden Locations, Pinaleno

Noimtains, Graham Cowity, Arizona, 1986 through 1991.1

SpruceFir Total

Knoim Middens - Spring 1986

Nu~er of Known Middens

(Distribution of Middens

by Vegetation Association)

Ct.muLative Hectares EAcresJ Surveyed

Knowi Niddens - Spring 1990

NLmt~er of Known I4iddens

(Distribution of Middens

by Vegetation Association)

Cunulative Hectares (Acres] Surveyed

Knoem Niddens — FaLL 1990

Nuvi,er of Known Middens

(Distribution of Middens

by Vegetation Association)

9

(4%)

80

(39%)

118 207

(57%) (100%)

1,151 ha [2,845ac]

21

(7%)

1.867 ha [4,614ad

51

(12%)

124

(43%)

214

(49%)

145 290

(50%) (100%)

167 432

(39%) (100%)

CLimilative Hectares [Acres]Surveyed

Know, Middens - FalL 1991

Nui~er of Known I4iddens

(Distribution of Middens

by Vegetation Association)

3,047 ha [7,530ac]

78

(14%)

268

(49%)

203 549

(37%) (100%)

Ci.m,uLative Hectares [Acres]Surveyed 4,058 ha [10.028ac]

New niddens have been located by systematic searches and by accident. As each midden is Located and

mapped, the vegetation association at and iirniediately surrounding the midden is classified, and the midden

is added to the current data base. The table shows the distribution of known middens fran 1986 through

1991, including all newly located niiddens found during systematic surveys in the sumier of 1990 and 1991.

The U. S. Forest Service is currently developing criteria for removing niddens from the data base once they

have been inactive for long periods of time, but no midden has been removed from the list at this time.

Mixed

Conifer Transition

6
The percent of occupied middens is multiplied by the estimated number of

middens within that vegetation association. Assumptions for both methods

are: (1) squirrel occupancy can be determined from signs of recent caching,

digging, and the condition of midden material, even when squirrels are not

directly observed, and (2) one squirrel occupies only one active midden at

a time. Further information on these population estimates is available

from the Coronado National Forest.

Present Status

Because of past logging, fires, and development, habitat for the Mt. Graham

red squirrel has been lost both directly and indirectly (e.g., by

fragmentation and edge effects from clearings). The main cause for the

decline of the sub—species has been a cumulative loss of habitat. As

stated earlier, only about one—half of the original coniferous forests are

still considered suitable habitat for the Mt. Graham red squirrel.

Population estimates indicated a decline in red squirrel numbers between

spring 1986 and spring 1990 (Table 3). Spring population figures are a

better representation of the potential breeding population and are thus

more useful indicators of population status than fall population figures.

In spring 1986, the population was estimated at 348 +/— 55 squirrels, but

by 1989 numbers had fallen, presumably due to poor cone production by

conifers between 1987 and 1989. However, during the summer of 1990 almost

all conifer species produced good cone crops (USFS, unpubl. data), and the

population appears to have had good recruitment that fall. Over winter

survival in 1990-91 appeared high, as evidenced by the estimate of the

population, in spring 1991, of 259—293 Mt. Graham red squirrels (Table 3).

The October 1991 population estimate of 380—400 reflects the increase in

juveniles from one 1991 breeding season. Over winter survival in 1991—92

appears to have been high. Survival over 1992 was not as high as 1991,

probably due to low cone crops.

Reasons for Listing

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the Mt. Graham red

squirrel as endangered in 1987 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (52

FR 20997). Critical habitat for the Mt. Graham red squirrel was designated

on February 5, 1990 (55 FR 425). This section outlines the suspected

reasons for the squirrels’ decline and addresses current concerns about

present and future activities related to the decline.

Although the Mt. Graham red squirrel has historically been restricted to a

relatively small area, both its range and numbers have declined during the

past century. Early accounts of the species abundance used descriptions

such as “common” and “abundant” (Hoffmeister 1986, Mearns 1907). By the

1950s, the population was described as “nOt abundant anyplace in the

Mountains” (Hoffmeister 1956), and by the mid—1960’s was rare enough that

Minckley (1968) believed it extirpated. An observation report by USFS

personnel from the Coronado National Forest from the early 1960’s suggests

that the species once occupied the western most peaks of the range (West

Peak and Blue Jay Peak), but no additional records of red squirrels from

the western portion of the range have been verified since.

Although not precisely documented, the decline of the Mt. Graham red

squirrel may be attributed to the expansion of logging operations in the

Pinalenos (USFS, unpubl. data). By 1973, most accessible and marketable

timber had been cut, thereby altering the age structure and density of much

of the red squirrels’ forest habitat. Logging operations and road building

to accommodate harvests resulted in areas of windthrow that destroyed

additional habitat for the squirrel. Additional losses of old-growth

coniferous forest resulted from both natural and man—caused fires, ice

13
TabLe 2. Average physicaL and vegetational characteristics of red squirrel middens (typical size of

midden 0.031 ha, 0.078 ac) in spruce-fir and transition zone forests, Pinaleno Mountains, Arizona

(Mannan and Smith 1991).

Variable Spruce-fir niidden sites Transition midden sites

Canopy CLosure

> xX

85 85

Muiiber of Snags

>40 cm (16”) DBH

1.5 1.0

Muter of downed logs

40 cm (16”) around

and 10w (33’) long

8.6 8.0

Muter trees >40cm

(16”) DBH

3.3 4.1

Muter trees 21-40cm

(8”—16”) DBH

13 12

Muter trees <20cm

(8”) DBH

51 33

Basal Area, m

2/ha

2 (ft /ac)

67

(293)

74

(322)

8
Conservation Measures

Management of the forest has been altered in recent years. The USFS

stopped all harvesting of timber, fuelwood, and Christmas trees, and

restricted campfire wood gathering in some areas. The AGFD halted red

squirrel hunting in 1986. The USFS, in conjunction with the AGFD, the

USFWS, and various volunteer organizations, have monitored the red squirrel

population and cone crop production since 1986. The University of Arizona

(UA) is monitoring potential construction impacts of the astrophysical

complex on the red squirrel, with oversight and review of the monitoring

program by the USFS, USFWS, and AGFD. In addition, searches of previously

unsurveyed areas for red squirrel middens are being conducted. A revised

and detailed classification and inventory of vegetation associations is

planned by the USFS to help delineate vegetation associations, and to

update habitat quality maps using information from recent habitat research

(Mannan and Smith 1991).

The USFWS issued a Biological Opinion on development of the Mt. Graham

International Observatory in July 1988, in response to a request for formal

consultation from the USFS. “Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 3” of that

Biological Opinion was later used as the basis for Sec. 602—608 of the

Arizona—Idaho Conservation Act (P.L. 100-696). The Act directed the Forest

Service to grant the University of Arizona a permit to construct three

telescopes and consider future applications for up to four additional

telescopes. Several features required by Alternative 3 have changed

management direction on the Pinalenos. These include: (1) closing the

areas around Emerald, Hawk and High Peaks above 3,048 m (10,000 ft) and the

area around Plainview Peak above 2804 m (9800 ft) to all camping, hiking,

and other recreation uses, creating a Red Squirrel Refugium; (2) closing

several Forest Service roads in red squirrel habitat to all vehicular

traffic; (3) constructing a new access road to the astrophysical complex;

(4) reforestation of potential habitat; and (5) obliteration and

reforestation of FR 669 and 507. In addition, Alternative 3 provides for

monitoring the impacts of construction of the astrophysical observatory on

the red squirrel population. Lastly, Alternative 3 requires that studies

be funded by the University of Arizona on red squirrel life history and

ecology. Research funding should be available for a period of ten years

(1989—1999). A Red Squirrel Study Committee currently develops priorities

and oversees research on the red squirrel. Currently funded projects

include a study of fire history by the Tree Ring Laboratory (UA); foraging

ecology of the Mt. Graham red squirrel, Brown University; habitat

characteristics of middens, UA; trapping and marking techniques for red

squirrels, Pennsylvania State University; and a study on the antiquity of

the spruce—fir forest, Northern Arizona University.

Strategy for Increase and Stabilization

The Mt. Graham red squirrel is in a survival crisis apparently caused by

cumulative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation. The naturally

limited distribution of this subspecies increases risks associated with

habitat loss and fragmentation. The current population size suggests a

considerable short—term risk of extinction from demographic and

environmental (e.g., food) stochasticity (see Stabilization Objectives).

The strategy for stabilizing the Mt. Graham red squirrel will conserve a

wide variety of species that use and/or are dependent upon mature

upper—elevation forest ecosystems on Mt. Graham. A closed—canopy forest

also promotes growth of mushrooms that are used as food by many species.

The most important step in preventing short-term extinction is to protect

existing habitat from further loss or fragmentation. Protection of

suitable habitats will be a major priority in efforts to increase and

stabilize the Mt. Graham red squirrel population. Even small losses of

15
Vahle (1978) noted the importance of single old growth Douglas—fir trees in

home ranges of red squirrels in the White Mountains, Arizona but also

stated that at least nine to fourteen mature seed trees within a red

squirrel’s home range (average .40 ha [1 acre]) ensured an adequate food

supply. In general, large dominant trees are the best cone producers. Red

squirrels usually concentrate their cone cutting for winter storage on the

few trees in a stand that are the best cone producers (Finley 1969).

Froehlich (1990) found that Mt. Graham red squirrels tended to concentrate

foraging bouts on the few trees within a squirrel’s home range (average

3.62 ha or (8.9 ac]). The mean dbh of these “forage trees” was

significantly larger than other adult trees of the same species within the

home range (Froehlich 1990). Most of the “forage trees” were the dominant

trees in the stands.

In the Pinalenos, observations at middens during USFS surveys indicate

Engelmann spruce and Douglas—fir are the most common species of trees

supplying food to the Mt. Graham red squirrel. Douglas—fir, in general a

consistent cone producer (Finley 1969), is important in the Pinalenos,

especially in areas where it co—exists with Engelmann spruce. It might be

increasingly important in years when the spruce cone crop fails (such as

1987, 1988, and 1989), but Douglas-fir still produces adequate numbers of

cones. Douglas—fir is a more widespread species on Mt. Graham but is more

often found in logged and broken habitats at lower elevations where

microclimates to support middens may not be as suitable as at higher

elevations. This may reduce its overall contribution to the food supply of

the red squirrel population.

C. Smith (1968) recorded T. hudsonicus in British Columbia eating 42

different species of fungi, with a preference for small false truffles. In

two examples, Smith noted that mushrooms and false truffles supplied more

than half the squirrels’ daily calories. Ferron and Prescott (1977)

observed red squirrels spending up to 20% of their time harvesting fungi in

season. By volume, fungi were 77% of red squirrels’ diets in western

Oregon (Maser et al. 1978). Mt. Graham red squirrels have been observed to

readily utilize fungi as food (Froehlich 1990). Miller (1991) recently

analyzed the nutritional content of three above—ground species of mushrooms

eaten by Mt. Graham red squirrels. Percent crude protein and percent

digestible protein was higher than all conifer seeds except Engelmann

spruce in summer (Miller 1991). C. Smith (1968) found that truffle protein

content was also as high as some conifer seed per unit weight. Mushrooms

and truffles may take less effort to eat than extracting seeds from cones.

Combined with information on nutritional values, this may explain in part

their relative importance in the diet.

In the Pinalenos, above—ground mushrooms appear during spring snowmelt and

after summer rains begin. Because of their exposed gills, these species

are better suited for drying and red squirrels have been observed

harvesting, drying and storing these species (0. Froehlich, Coronado NF,

pers. comm.). Because of their anatomy, below—ground truffles must be

eaten as harvested. Fungal food resources are utilized according to

seasonal availability. Observations have confirmed mushroom harvesting and

storage in trees and middens of more than eight mushroom species (P.

Warshall, UA, G. Froehlich, Coronado NF, pers. comm.).

Population Ecology

Population ecology of the Mt. Graham red squirrel is largely unknown.

Except a few anecdotal observations, little life history (litter size at

birth, age at first reproduction, birth rates, mortality rates, sex ratios)

is known. This section briefly reviews population studies of other

subspecies of Tamiasciurus and the present knowledge of the Mt. Graham red

squirrel population.

10
Within the mixed conifer forest and transition forest, logging, which

occurred some time ago, has resulted in the reduction of large, dominant

Douglas—fir trees in some stands. The logging took the form of both

overstory removals and regeneration cuts which essentially took sites to

younger seral stages (early successional grass/forb/shrub stage or in the

case of an overstory removal to a younger forest stand of seedlings,

saplings or poles). Sites that were historically forested (old harvest

areas, fuel breaks, abandoned roads, etc.) should be the priority areas

targeted for reforestation and silvicultural treatment.

In some cases these sites are having difficulty returning to stocked forest

conditions because of the site dominance and competition of the herbaceous

material (grasses primarily). These early successional sites are where

assistance would most likely facilitate and speed up the succession process

in order to provide earlier recovery of the area to mature forest with

relatively closed canopies. We are acquiring a better understanding of

habitat requirements for midden sites so that land managers can attempt to

provide for red squirrel needs. The intent is to reforest formerly

forested areas, and it is not desirable to attempt to reforest sites that

are natural openings (cienegas, wet meadows, etc.).

Some concern has been expressed that reforestation will occur to the extent

that early seral stages will be severely lacking which will impact early

seral stage wildlife species. Forests are dynamic entities where

continuing disturbances can be expected, and it is also unlikely that

reforestation efforts would be so successful that early seral stages and

openings will be lost in the landscape to the extent that other wildlife

populations would be greatly affected or eliminated. In fact, in order to

provide mature forests in perpetuity, it will be necessary to provide for

all seral stages over time. It is likely that these stages will be

provided naturally in small patches naturally through the landscape over

time, rather than in larger harvest units or blocks.

Management strategies for insuring older forests in perpetuity in the mixed

conifer and transition vegetation types will be much more complex than in

the spruce—fir type. The complexity is a result of more tree species being

involved, a more significant role of fire in the ecology of these forests,

the past history of logging, the greater potential for catastrophic

wildfires, fuels management needs, and the greater interface with human

development. Because of the associated complexity, management strategies

will need to be developed on a site—specific level (individual forest

stands and conditions). This will require integration of forest

silviculture, fire management, and squirrel biology. First priority should

be given to assisting sites that are in early successional stages. Second

priority needs to be given to sites in mid—successional stages (seedling—

sapling and poles). Third priority needs to be given to mature and old

forest sites that are currently suitable. These mature and old forest

sites will change over time in both structure and tree composition and in

some cases actively managed and manipulated in order to maintain the

desired forest characteristics long—term. Management of these sites would

normally not require logging or mature tree removal. Management would tend

to include practices such as low—intensity prescribed fires (maintaining

snag and downed log characteristics), thinning from below of younger tree

classes in order to promote a developing overstory, and perhaps occasional

interplanting, etc. The goal should be to maintain the existing older

forest character while providing for recruitment of future overstory

species. In many cases little or no active management will be needed in the

near future.

Reforestation efforts will require:

1. A detailed understanding of how macro— and micro—habitat correlates to

squirrel abundance and productivity;

17
Table 3. Original arid revised population estimates for the Mt. Graham red squirrel, Pinaleno Mowitains,

Graham Couity. Arizona, 1986-1991 - Sample sizes are the nwaber of middem Locations visited. Uhere tHo

estimates are given, they are the minium and maximum estimated range. See the text for expLanation of

methods used to determine estimates.

Original

Estimate (95% CI

)

328 (4/- 55)

246 (4/- 40)

207 (4/- 62)

178 (~1- 62)

226 (4/- 62)

197 (4/- 63)

116 (~1- 29)

167 (4/- 32)

162 (4/- 15)

185 (4/- 15)

132 (4/. 15)

146 (4/- 16)

Revised

Estimate (95%CJ

)

348 (4/- 55)

235 (4/- 40)

210 (4/- 62)

194 (4/- 62)

258 (4/- 62)

210 (4/- 63)

146 (4/- 29)

221 (4/- 32

191 (4/- 15)

204 (4/- 15)

152 (4/- 15)

169 (4/- 16)

260 (4/- 7~ 1

265 (4/- ~ 1

272 (4/- 13)

280 (4/- 13)

380 (4/- 13)

400 (4/- 13

370 (4/- 16)

383 (4/- 16)

306 (4/- 16)

355 (4/- 19)

1 Does not include approximately 40 newly created middens where

squirrels (probably young of the year) might be present.

Survey

May/June 86

Oct. 87

March 88

Oct. 88

SampLe

Size

207

150

45

45

Jan/Feb 89

June 89

Oct. 89

May 90

Oct. 90

45

166

267

271

396

June 91 208

Oct. 91 236

June 92 250

Oct. 92 217

12
amount and distribution of current and projected habitat available for

the Mt. Graham red squirrel; (2) an estimate of the habitat’s capability

to support the population; and (3) identification of the various types

of risks that may increase the probability of extinction for this

species.

Probabilities of persistence are defined as follows (from Marcot and

Holthausen 1987). All terms are subjective rather than specific

probabilities.

High: High likelihood of continued existence of a well—distributed

population on the Pinalenos for 100 years. There is limited latitude

for catastrophic events that will affect the population, or for

biological findings that the population is more susceptible to

demographic or genetic factors than was assumed in the analysis.

Moderate: Moderate likelihood of continued existence of a

well-distributed population on the Pinalenos for 100 years. There is no

latitude for catastrophic events or biological findings that the

population is more susceptible to demographic or genetic factors than

was assumed in the analysis.

Low: Low likelihood of continued existence of a well—distributed

population on the Pinalenos for 100 years. It is probable that

catastrophic, demographic, or genetic factors will cause extirpation

from parts or all of its geographic range.

Very Low: Very low likelihood of continued existence of a

well—distributed population on the Pinalenos for 100 years. It is highly

probable that catastrophic, demographic, or genetic factors will cause

extirpation of the species from parts or all of its range.

II. Habitat

11.1 Distribution

The Mt. Graham Red Squirrel is found only in the Pinaleno Mountains.

Restricted to one small mountain range, it is inherently vulnerable to

extinction.

Most suitable habitat and red squirrels are found in the central eastern

portion of the mountains, where highest elevations occur. The squirrel

was once present in the western portion of the Pinalenos. If degraded

habitat areas are restored, the red squirrel could expand into habitats

in the west and in lower elevations between 2,400 m (8,000 ft) and 2,898

m (9,500 ft).

11.2 Current Habitat Capability

The Pinalenos contain approximately 8,900 ha (22,000 ac) of mixed

conifer forest and spruce—fir forest communities. Based on a review of

FS habitat mapping information (USDA, Forest Service 1988) and other

data available in FS files, approximately 1,090 ha (2,700 ac) is

estimated to be good to excellent habitat. Another 3,100 ha (7,700 ac)

is estimated to be very poor to fair habitat. The remaining area either

All acreages listed are estimates used to explore management options.

The acreage numbers are different from those listed in the Expanded

Biological Assessment (USDA, Forest Service 1988) and the Biological Opinion

(USD1, FWS 1988) and should not be used for more detailed analysis, such as

computing impacts of developing small amounts of habitat.

19
storms, recreational development, road construction, and establishment of

summer homes, an administrative center and a horse pasture. These direct

losses not only reduced the amount of habitat but also resulted in forest

fragmentation that may have reduced the quality of habitat since forest

edges have a reduced capability to provide the proper microhabitat

characteristics for cone storage. This fragmentation might have also

isolated some pockets of the squirrel population and prevented successful

dispersal and/or movements between areas, thus reducing genetic flow within

the population.

It has also been suggested that the Mt. Graham red squirrel may have

suffered from competition with the Albert’s squirrel (Sciurus aberti)

.

This species was introduced into the Pinalenos in 1941 and 1943 by the

AGFD. The Albert’s squirrel now occupies much of the coniferous forest in

the Pinalenos but is most commonly found in the lower, more open, warmer,

and drier ponderosa pine forests. Unlike the red squirrel which stores its

winter food, the Albert’s squirrel does not store food and gathers its food

during the winter. This squirrel is adapted to relatively mild winter

climates in which winter snows seldom remain on the ground for more than a

few days at a time, thus enabling this squirrel to forage throughout the

winter. In contrast red squirrels typically occupy higher elevations, with

closed canopy forests of spruce, subalpine fir, or Douglas—fir which are

subjected to severe winter climates with deep snow. The red squirrel is

well adapted to such severe conditions and concentrates its winter food

supplies in cool, moist middens from which it feeds while the forest floor

is covered with deep snow for six or more months of the year. The red

squirrel is also territorial and highly protective of its middens. If

competitive interaction occurs it is most likely to occur where the ranges

of the two squirrels overlap such as in transitions between their preferred

habitats or where logging has opened up mixed conifer forests.

Although little is known about interactions between these two squirrels,

some authorities have suggested that competitive exclusion and ultimately

the decline of the red squirrel may have resulted from these interactions

(Brown 1984, Gehlbach 1981, Minckley 1968). The history and biology of

these two species in the Pinalenos are reviewed in Spicer et al. (1985) and

USDA, Forest Service (1988). Because there is a possibility that

competitive interactions may have influenced the reduction in red squirrel

range and numbers, research is needed to determine the extent to which

competition may be affecting red squirrel populations.

Present or future land management practices that will result in further

losses of red squirrel habitat include: construction of a major

astrophysical facility; road construction and improvement; recreational

development in coniferous forests (including picnic areas, campgrounds, and

snow play areas); and collection of dead and down wood. Mushroom

collection might reduce food sources for the squirrel. Additional losses

to red squirrel habitat could result from forest fires, disease outbreaks,

and windthrow (both natural and related to construction).

Any additional habitat disturbance must be recognized as a serious threat

to the continued survival of the Mt. Graham red squirrel. The cumulative

effects of direct and indirect (e.g., drying of forest edge) habitat loss,

as well as forest fragmentation, could be severe over time. These losses

to habitat have affected the viability of the Mt. Graham red squirrel

population to some unknown degree. If viability has been significantly

reduced, the Mt. Graham red squirrel may not withstand any more habitat

loss and fragmentation. Thus, there may be both short-term (next 20-60

years) and long—term crises. Stabilization efforts must address both

short—term and long—term (e.g., reforestation) crises.

14
or complete isolation of subpopulations and increased risks of local

extinction.

Reduction of available habitat by human actions has resulted in

significantly increased risks to the species. Because of reduced

habitat capability, the potential population will fluctuate at a reduced

level. Low points in the cycle may be below population viability. The

best protection against such fluctuations is to provide suitable habitat

in all vegetation associations to promote higher population among

habitats.

111.2 Genetics

Genetic variation within a population, effects of small population sizes

on genetic drift, and inbreeding depression play a role in the survival

and reproductive probabilities of individuals in a population. Research

in population viability has developed the concept of the effective

population size. This is defined as the size of the ideal population

that would have the same amount of random genetic drift as the actual

population. The effective population size takes into account the non—

breeding individuals in the population, thus to maintain a given

effective population size, the size of the total population must be

larger. The size of the effective population is influenced by many

demographic and environmental factors. Male—skewed sex ratios, high

variance in progeny survival, age structure of the population, spatial

distribution, and variation in population sizes over time all contribute

to a smaller effective population size compared to total population

size. If the actual effective population size is below the size

calculated to maintain existing genetic variability, some of that

variability would be lost. Over time, this loss may have significant

contributions to the level of risk generated by other factors.

The Mt. Graham red squirrel has several characteristics which may

contribute to a lowering of effective population size. The total

population size is limited and undergoes wide fluctuations. Due to

variance in cone crops and the effects upon reproduction, age structure

of the population may not be consistent with maintaining large numbers

of reproductively active individuals. In times of low population size,

small, perhaps isolated groups of individuals may be present. Sex

ratios and age of individuals in the group influence how many will

actually breed. These factors indicate an increased risk of loss of

genetic variance by the Mt. Graham red squirrel if the required

effective population size cannot be met.

111.3 Predation

Predation rates on the Mt. Graham red squirrel are unknown. Principal

predators include raptors and mammals. The best strategy to ameliorate

predation is to provide high quality habitat for the red squirrel. High

quality habitat should ensure favorable reproduction and survival rates

that can withstand losses to predation. Predator control is

unnecessary, expensive, and would most likely be ineffective.

111.4 Competition

The extent to which the Abert’s squirrel competes with the red squirrel

is unknown and needs to be determined. There is a potential for both

habitat use and dietary overlap between the species. If significant

competition exists, measures to reduce competition would be explored.

21
habitat are of concern, especially in light of habitat losses to natural

causes that are likely to occur and the precarious situation of a

fragmented forest.

Protection that may prevent the extinction of the squirrel includes (1)

establishment of Habitat Management Zones (See Appendix A), (2) implement

management plans to increase and stabilize the red squirrel population, (3)

determining the usefulness to red squirrel recovery of the designation of

Essential Habitat by the USFS, (4) road and/or area closures, (5) forest

management to reduce the probability of habitat destroying fires, and (6)

public education to increase understanding of how the conservation effort

will help the ecosystem.

Essential to recovery of the species is to provide a strategy for the long—

term recovery of degraded and currently unsuitable forests and to provide a

scheme that will provide for mature forests and suitable habitat over time.

However, when devising such a strategy, the natural ebb and flow of forest

seral stages must be taken into consideration. It is not realistic to

assume that regeneration of degraded habitats will be a straight line

process; natural factors such as fire, insects, small mammals (e.g.

gophers), different soils, aspects, and slopes will all affect the pace of

regeneration and reforestation. But, the general outlook for the species

in the long—term could be promising if the forest habitat were restored,

maintained, and perpetuated. Reforestation of degraded habitats will

eventually provide a wider and more secure land base for the species and

thus, is a major priority for recovery.

In order to provide for long—term survival of the red squirrel, it is

necessary to provide habitat (mid—aged, mature and older forests) in

perpetuity. Forests are dynamic, not static entities. Trees, like all

living organisms, are mortal. Thus, it is important to consider the

dynamics of the forest associations on the Pinaleno Mountains and determine

strategies to insure mature forests into the long—term (100—200 years and

beyond).

The major forest associations of concern are the spruce—fir, mixed conifer

and the transition between the two types. Recent studies of the spruce—fir

forest and the Pinaleno indicate that in the old growth areas the spruce

and fir species are “well represented in many size and age classes,

indicating continuing recruitment under a mature canopy by both species”

(Stromberg and Patton 1991).

Before the arrival of European settlers, forests throughout western North

America were burned by frequent low—intensity, lightning-caused ground

fires. These fires were particularly prevalent in ponderosa pine forests,

to a lesser extent in the mixed conifer forests, and were infrequent and

rare in the spruce—fir forests. Accordingly, fire plays a corresponding

role in the ecology of each of these forest types.

Wildfire suppression since the early 1900’s has greatly reduced fire

frequency and in many areas entirely eliminated fire from these forests.

On Mt. Graham, wildfires (both man-caused and natural) still occur but

active suppression occurs due to the present potential for catastrophic

fires.

In the spruce—fir forest, small partial disturbances from events such as

windthrow, natural mortality, disease and lightning strikes will likely

serve as the mechanism providing mid—seral succession and thus forest

regeneration and perpetuation. Total stand replacement and regeneration

from events such as logging or catastrophic fires are not needed or

desired. Spruce and true firs are not fire adapted (i.e., they are thin

barked) compared to pine and Douglas-fir species which are fire tolerant

(i.e., they have thick bark) to moderate understory burning.

16
The sub-species population fluctuates widely. To date, the population

has remained below the estimated maximum predicted by habitat

capability. Population size may become dangerously low, which may

result in increased risk of extinction as a result of natural variations

in birth and death rates and associated genetic risks.

Based on habitat capability estimates of a maximum population of

approximately 650 squirrels, the potential for chance extinction is a

real and potentially imminent threat (M. Schaffer, The Wilderness

Society, pers. comm.). The chances of long term persistence of the Mt.

Graham red squirrel must be classified as moderate to low. However, the

squirrels’ status is not hopeless or irreversible. With aggressive

habitat protection and restoration and an improved distribution of red

squirrels on the mountain, relative security could be possible.

Circumstances which do not allow for protection of existing habitats and

successful restoration of degraded habitats lower the opportunities to

achieve relative security.

B. Stabilization Objectives

Because a detailed PVA has not been prepared and the preliminary PVA shows

reason to consider the species at considerable risk, specific downlisting

or delisting criteria are not included in this plan. A formal PVA has been

recommended in the implementation schedule of this plan.

Immediate needs are to provide sufficient habitat to allow the red squirrel

population to (1) increase (population lows should exceed 300 adult

squirrels), (2) become more evenly distributed spatially, and (3)

stabilize. The USFWS will consider population lows to be meeting or

exceeding the 300 adult squirrel criteria when the joint interagency census

figures have shown the population to exceed 300 squirrels consistently, for

a minimum of eight years consecutively. This monitoring period must have

covered at least one year of widespread poor cone crops across either the

spruce—fir and/or mixed conifer communities. These criteria may be

modified by the USFWS as improved information on the species and its

viability is obtained. Because high quality habitat is critical to Mt.

Graham red squirrel survival, a Habitat Management Zone map (Appendix A)

delineates areas of high value as habitat zones 1, 2, and 5. For the

squirrel to survive, habitat loss must not occur in these zones. Degraded

habitat areas in these zones must be recovered. The following actions are

needed to stabilize the Mt. Graham red squirrel population:

1. Protection and restoration of habitat

11. Physical protection

111. Administrative actions

1111. Designate essential habitat

1112. Road and area closures and other use restriction

12. Management

121. Habitat management zone implementation

122. Reforestation

1221. Prepare a mountain—wide reforestation plan

1222. Reforestation plan implementation

1223. Rehabilitation efforts monitoring

123. Inventory of vegetation associations

1231. Monitoring habitat quality

124. Recreation

1241. Develop recreation management plan

1242. Monitoring recreation impacts

125. Population monitoring

1251. Long—term population monitoring

1252. Midden surveys

1253. Restoration habitat needs evaluation

126. Cone crop monitoring

23
2. An ecological classification and invento~ f vegetation;

3. Habitat Capability/Habitat Suitability Index model based on (1) and

(2);

4. A long—term habitat recovery (restoration) plan based on all of the

above.

Adaptation, implementation, and monitoring of the restoration efforts will

be required. The habitat recovery plan must also include the flexibility

needed to adapt changes that may be necessary based on new information and

monitoring results. Some stands will require complete reforestation, while

others may require varying amounts of silvicultural management. The

average midden characteristics in spruce—fir and transition zones (Mannan

and Smith 1991) Will help provide guidelines for desired future conditions

within each vegetation association.

A Mt. Graham red squirrel population viability analysis (PVA) is essential

to predict short— and long—term persistence of the species. Continual

refinements of the PVAs likely are the best tool for understanding

management needed to increase and stabilize the squirrel population. Close

monitoring of population trends, construction and recreation impacts, and

habitat management efforts will be essential if the effort is to be

successful. A detailed monitoring plan should be developed.

A comprehensive fire management plan must be developed. Additional

information regarding population biology, habitat requirements, foods and

foraging, and other aspects of red squirrel biology are necessary to the

population increase and stabilization efforts.

II. STABILIZATION

Endangered species conservation strategies must plan for viable populations

through time. Viable populations are those that are not likely to become

extinct over a set time interval. The ultimate goal of maintaining

population viability is to ensure continued existence. Since land managers

and scientists can not conceive and consider all influencing factors that

affect a species in the short or long term, conservation biology must focus

on a manageable period of time, such as a hundred years. To establish

management that may lead to species recovery, a detailed population

viability analysis (PVA), using research information for the Mt. Graham red

squirrel and its habitat, is needed. While there is some general

information available to develop an initial PVA, specific information

needed to refine PVAs is lacking. Collection of these data and continued

use of PVAs to guide stabilization strategies is a top priority.

A. Assessment of Population Viability

I. Introduction

The goal of a PVA is to identify the risks of extinction. The computer

models used simulate responses to estimated parameters. The goal of

viability planning is to maintain adequate estimated numbers and

distribution to ensure the continued existence of a well—distributed

population. Continued existence implies a population that has a high

probability (usually 95%) of existence for a specified time frame,

generally 100 years or more.

This assessment attempts to summarize current knowledge of the ecology

of the Mt. Graham red squirrel and its habitat in relationship to the

population’s viability. The assessment includes: (1) an overview of the

18
(see Appendix A). Implementation of habitat management

zones is essential to provide the framework needed to

stabilize the Mt. Graham red squirrel population.

122. Reforestation. Reforestation is the most important long—

term stabilization action. In combination with existing

habitats, restored forests will provide a more secure

habitat and help buffer the species from catastrophic

occurrences -

1221. Mountain—wide reforestation plan. A comprehensive

plan for reforestation and/or improvement of degraded

areas should be developed by the USFS. The plan

should concentrate on areas previously logged in

habitat zones 2 and 3 (see Appendix A). Reforestation

should be prioritized and prescriptions included for

each area. Prescriptions may include natural or

artificial regeneration or other silviculture methods

needed to improve stands for red squirrel habitat.

Reforestation of closed roads should be included in

the plan.

1222. Reforestation plan implementation. This action

includes the needed silviculture actions.

1223. Rehabilitation efforts monitoring. Monitoring should

provide information on seedling growth rates and the

affects of thinning. Monitoring results will be used

to modify reforestation efforts.

123. Inventory of vegetation associations. Quantitative habitat

assessment of all areas on the mountain is essential for

monitoring success of reforestation and determining current

and future red squirrel carrying capacity. A vegetative

analysis that accurately delineates forest stands by

vegetative type and structural stage is the first step.

Vegetative maps should be combined with information on red

squirrel habitat needs to assess habitat quality. One

method may be the Geographical Information System (GIS).

1231. Monitoring habitat quality. Monitoring red squirrel

habitat should take place on a regular basis and

include occupied habitats and silvicultural efforts.

GIS habitat maps should be updated regularly.

124. Recreation management plan. The Mt. Graham red squirrel

habitat management zone concept should be accepted and

implemented by USFS as part of any recreation plan. The

USFS should develop a long-term (at least 20 years)

comprehensive recreation plan for the Pinalenos. The plan

should outline all proposed recreational developments and

assess potential conflicts that may develop within red

squirrel habitat. Potential conflicts must be resolved to

prevent further threats to red squirrel survival.

1241. Monitoring recreation impacts. A plan for monitoring

developed and dispersed recreation sites should be

developed and implemented. Monitoring results will be

used by the District Ranger to modify management

strategies as needed.

125. Population monitoring. Monitoring the red squirrel

population will require a long-term commitment of regular

25
has little potential to become suitable or is currently in an unsuitable

condition.

Extensive surveys have located, identified, and followed the history of

midden sites on the mountain. Midden numbers have been used to estimate

the possible squirrel population. Using the most recent habitat and

density information derived from surveys, we estimate the habitat can

support approximately 650 red squirrels under optimal circumstances.

The population has not recently approached this level.

11.3 Future Habitat Situation

Habitat capability for the future has been estimated using the current

acreages and estimated succession to predict future forest conditions.

Assuming no losses of habitat, it is estimated that in the Iong term

(100—200 years), a total of approximately 1,820 ha (4,500 ac) of good to

excellent habitat could be available and an additional total of 3,560 ha

(8,800 ac) of very poor to fair habitat could become available.

Using estimated future habitat conditions and applying squirrel density

estimates, we predict future maximum habitat capability for

approximately 900 squirrels in the long term (100—200 years into the

future). If sufficient amounts of fair quality habitat develop into

good to excellent quality habitat (attaining canopy closures greater

than 60 percent), then it may be possible to reach or exceed a habitat

capability for 1,000 squirrels.

III. Risks of extinction

111.1 Demography

In many small mammal species, large fluctuations in population size may

occur from year to year. For the red squirrel in the Pinaleno

Mountains, these fluctuations are largely driven by the availability of

conifer cones. Conifer species produce cones on multi—year irregular

cycles, with wide variations in production in any particular year.

Different conifer species and different stands within a forest are on

different cycles and are influenced greatly by environmental variables.

Red squirrel populations in the Pinalenos are dependent on conifer cone

crops for their primary food supply. When cone crops are good, red

squirrel numbers are likely to increase due to improved juvenile and

adult survival. When cone crops are poor, red squirrel numbers are

likely to decrease due to increased juvenile and adult mortality. These

fluctuations in numbers are normal. Overlying these fluctuations based

on food supply are restraints based on habitat capability. The

population cannot exceed the capability of the habitat. Thus, actual

increases in numbers are restricted. Decreases in numbers are not

restricted. For the Mt. Graham red squirrel, habitat capability is very

limited. Natural fluctuations in population around that capability may

result in populations below the levels needed for viability. Until the

capability of the habitat improves, thus easing the restrictions on

population increases, normal population decreases will be a cause for

concern.

The mosaic effect of food availability compounds this problem. If a

cone crop from a single species forms, red squirrels in those areas

should have a higher survival and reproductive probability. Because of

limited habitat, some percentage of the squirrels may not find suitable

midden sites and will not survive. Over the short-term, this results in

concentrations of red squirrels in areas with cones, and significantly

fewer squirrels between those areas. This situation can create partial

20
implementing the stabilization effort and ensure continued

cooperation among the agencies.

2. Research. Reliable PVA models require accurate parameters. Data is

needed on the population biology, habitat requirements, and limiting

factors for the Mt. Graham red squirrel. Habitat use and productivity

among different vegetation associations are not well understood.

21. Mt Graham red squirrels. Additional information on the biology of

the squirrel is essential to stabilize the population. Most

reproductive parameters are unknown.

211. Population dynamics/life history. Safe methods of marking

red squirrels should be used in detailed population studies

in all habitats. Comparison among different habitats in the

Pinalenos can then proceed.

212. Population viability analyses. Evaluations of population

distribution, exchange rates between subpopulations, and

monitoring data are needed to provide guidelines to

stabilize the population over the long—term. Improved PVAs

and genetic studies are needed.

213. Midden characteristics. After an accurate vegetation map is

produced, habitat research should be used to update habitat

quality ratings. Habitat capabilities can then be further

refined and stabilization goals quantified and updated.

214. Interspecific interactions

.

2141. Albert’s squirrels. Research into possible

competitive interaction with Abert’s squirrels is

necessary to determine if competitive exclusion from

some habitats, or competition for food resources, is

depressing red squirrel numbers. If significant

competition is found, control of Abert’s squirrels may

be considered.

2142. Predation. Identification of potential predators and

their population levels is needed. Predation rates

should be determined and, if significant, options to

reduce predation explored.

22. Short-term contingency plans. Plans should be developed to allow

special management procedures if the red squirrel population

should reach critically low numbers or other special management

needs are identified.

221. Supplemental feeding. Guidelines and procedures regarding

potential for supplemental feeding should be developed in

the event such actions become necessary to ensure survival

of the wild red squirrel population.

222. Captive breeding. A plan should be developed to take Mt.

Graham red squirrels into captivity to develop culture

techniques should captive reproduction be necessary in the

future -

223. Emergency plans for habitat catastrophes. A plan outlining

strategies to be implemented in the event of catastrophic

loss of habitat should be prepared.

3. Public education. The public should be made aware of the red squirrel

and actions needed to protect the species. Positive aspects of red

27
III Asease

Ther s no information available that diseases play a major role in red

squir. ~l population regulation. The territorial behavior of red

squirrels may help reduce spreading of diseases.

111.6 Catastrophes

a. Catastrophic Wildfire

Some wildfires create conditions which enhance or preserve the desirable

attributes of red squirrel habitat. Others degrade the attributes,

sometimes severely. Fires that kill mature tree stands are of concern.

Initial fire—fighting attack times can be upwards of 8—10 hours because

of the remoteness and ruggedness of the terrain (J. Schulte, Coronado

National Forest, pers. comm.). There likely are differential risks of

catastrophic fires depending on vegetation association. The mixed

conifer association, which contains most of the recovery habitat, is

likely to lose habitat in the future. The spruce—fir association is

less susceptible to catastrophic fire because of its inherent moist

condition. In the 1950’s two catastrophic fires, the Nuttall and Outlaw

fires, burned more than 15,000 acres of which 10,000 acres is estimated

to have been red squirrel habitat. If losses of habitat continue at

this rate, at least 25,000 acres may be lost during the next 100 years.

Catastrophic wildfires will continue to be a significant threat to Mt.

Graham red squirrel survival.

b. Drought

Periodic and prolonged drought can negatively impact food resources and

increase the threat of catastrophic fires. Severe droughts may also

reduce forest regeneration and increase tree disease and insect

infestation impacts. Periodic drought probably influences cone crop

production. Cone crop failures can lead to large red squirrel

population fluctuations. Drought may contribute substantially to the

risk of extinction.

c. Global Warming

The Pinalenos contain relict montane conifer and spruce—fir associations

that have retreated up the mountain in elevation since the Pleistocene

glacial period. Global warming might cause a further retreat of the

forests up the mountain greatly reducing or eliminating red squirrel

habitat -

IV. Summary and conclusions

The Mt. Graham red squirrel is restricted to a single isolated mountain

range and dependent on a relatively small land base within that range.

The population is isolated. The population is inherently vulnerable to

extinction. With aggressive habitat protection and restoration during

the next 100 years, it may be possible to increase the habitat

capability by 35—40% (to approximately 1000 squirrels).

Natural or man—caused catastrophes could cause extinction. Catastrophic

fire (both natural and human caused) and human development projects

within the habitat are the most immediate threats that will likely

affect suitable habitat. Global warming could cause retreat of the

Pleistocene relict forest and reduce the squirrels’ chances for survival

over the long—term. Insect or tree disease outbreaks are also

significant treats to suitable habitat.

22
III. LITERATURE CITED

Allen, J. A. 1894. Descriptions of ten new North American mammals, and

remarks on others. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 6:320-321.

Brown, D. E. 1984. Arizona’s tree squirrels. Arizona Game and Fish Dept.,

Phoenix, Arizona. 114 pp.

Conner, R.N. 1979. Minimum standards and forest wildlife management.

Wild. Soc. Bull. 7:293—296

Ferner, J.W. 1974. Habitat relationships of Tamiasciurus hudsonicus and

Sciurus aberti in the Rocky Mountains. Southwestern Naturalist 18:470—

473.

Ferron, J. and J. Prescott. 1977. Gestation, litter size, and number of

litters of the red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) in Quebec.

Canadian Field Nat. 91:83—84.

Finley, R. B., Jr. 1969. Cone caches and middens of Tamiasciurus in the

Rocky Mountain region. Pages 233—273 in J. K Jones, Jr. (ed.).

Contributions in Mammalogy. Univ. of Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Misc. Publ.

51: 1—428.

Flyger, V. and J. E. Gates. 1982. Pine squirrels: Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

and T. douglasii. Pages 230—238 in J. A. chapman and G. A. Feldhamer

(eds.). Wild mammals of North America. John Hopkins Univ. Press,

Baltimore, Maryland.

Froehlich, G. F. 1990. Habitat use and life history of the Mt. Graham red

squirrel. M S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 62 pp.

Gehlbach, F.R. 1981. Mountain islands and desert seas: a natural history

of the U.S.—Mexican borderlands. Texas A&M Univ. Press. College

Station.

Gurnell, J. 1983. Squirrel numbers and the abundance of tree seeds. Mammal

Rev. 13:133—148.

______- 1987. The natural history of squirrels. Facts on File, Inc., Publ.

New York, New York. 201 pp.

Hall, E. R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Vol. I. Second Edition.

John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 302 pp.

Halvorson, C. H. 1980. Preview summary: Ecology of an island red squirrel

population. Unpubl. ins., Coronado National Forest, Tucson, Arizona.

• 1986. Influence of vertebrates on conifer seed production. Pages

201—222 in Proceeding of the Conifer Tree Seed in the Inland Mountain

West Symposium. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Intermountain Research

Station, Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rept. mt. 203.

_______ and R.M. Engeman. 1983. Survival analyses for a red squirrel

population. J. Mammal. 64:332—336.

Hatt, R.T. 1943. The pine squirrel in Colorado. Journal of Mammology.

24: 311—345.

Hoffmeister, D.F. 1956. Mammals of the Graham (Pinaleno) Mountains,

Arizona. American Midland Naturalist. 55:257—288.

- 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press,

Tucson, Arizona. 602 pp.

29
127. Road kill reduction

128. Management flexibility

13. Fire suppression

131. Fire management plan

14. Law enforcement

15. Interagency cooperation

2. Research

21. Mt Graham red squirrels

211. Population dynamics/life history

212. Population viability analyses

213. Midden characteristics

214. Interspecific interactions

22. Short—term contingency plans

221. Supplemental feeding

222. Captive breeding

223. Emergency plans for habitat catastrophes

3. Public education

31. Education programs

311. Develop pamphlets

312. Develop trail signs

313. Develop campground interpretive programs

314. Develop volunteer programs

32. Columbine visitor information station

321. Develop interpretive signs and exhibits

C. Narrative Outline

1. Protection and restoration of habitat. This is the most important

factor for continued survival of the Mt. Graham red squirrel. Because

habitat is limited, further habitat losses could cause extinction in the

near future. Many areas of potentially suitable habitat are degraded.

Restoration of degraded areas is essential.

11. Physical protection. Signs, road closures, restrictions, and

other measures must be provided to limit disturbance to squirrels

and their habitat.

111. Administrative actions. Actions required to protect the

habitat.

1111. Designate essential habitat. Essential habitat is

defined (USFS Manual 2670.5) as habitat possessing the

same characteristics as critical habitat.

1112. Road and area closures and other use restrictions

.

When determined necessary to prevent direct or

indirect impacts to squirrels and habitat, closures or

restrictions should be used as needed.

12. Management. The USFS should amend the Coronado National Forest

Plan to include the appropriate tasks recommended by the recovery

plan. Short and long—term management actions that protect and

restore habitats and the squirrel population are essential. Plans

should provide continued protection of habitats, reforestation and

rehabilitation of potential habitats, and long—term monitoring of

the squirrel population and its habitat on the Pinaleno Mountains.

121. Habitat management zone implementation. A map and

recommended management guidelines have been prepared

(Appendix A). Recommendations contained therein should help

prioritize areas for habitat management and/or restoration

24
Sullivan, R. M. and T. L. Yates. (in press). Population genetics and

conservation of relict populations of the red squirrel (Genus

Tamiasciurus). Paper given at Biology of Mount Graham Workshop, held at

the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 1989.

Uphoff, K. C. 1990. Habitat use and reproductive ecology of red squirrels

(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). M. S. Thesis, Arizona State University,

Tempe, Arizona. 64 pp.

USDA, Forest Service. 1988. Mount Graham red squirrel: an expanded

biological assessment. Coronado National Forest, Tucson, Arizona.

l3Opp.

USD1, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Biological opinion on Colorado

National Forest Plan and Mt. Graham Astrophysical Area Plan. Provided to

Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, July 14, 1988. 44pp.

Vahle, J. R. 1978. Red squirrel use of southwestern mixed coniferous

habitat. M. S. Thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. 100 pp.

_______ and D. R. Patton. 1983. Red squirrel cover requirements in Arizona

mixed conifer forests. J. Forest. 81:14—15, 22.

Warren, P. 1986. The ecology and behavior of the red squirrel, Tamiasciurus

hudsonicus. Unpubl. ins., Coronado National Forest, Tucson, Arizona.

Warshall, P. 1986. Mt Graham squirrel evaluation. Unpubl. rept., Coronado

National Forest, Tucson, Arizona.

Wood, T. J. 1967. Ecology and population dynamics of the red squirrel

(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) in Wood Buffalo National Park. M.S. Thesis,

University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.

Woods, S.E., Jr. 1980. The squirrels of Canada. National Mus. Canada,

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

31
censuses and periodic analyses of the population

distribution.

1251. Long—term population monitoring. A comprehensive

Interagency Population Monitoring Plan should be

developed that includes monitoring to provide data on

population trends. Semi—annual monitoring should

continue until the population has increased and

stabilized.

1252. Midden surveys. The USFS should intensively survey

all unsurveyed areas on the Pinaleno Mountains.

Middens should be located, mapped, and information on

the surrounding forest recorded. As necessary, areas

should be re—surveyed to locate new middens. The

Global Positioning System should be evaluated in

documenting midden locations. GIS midden distribution

data should be regularly updated.

1253. Restoration habitat needs evaluation. Habitat that

has potential for supporting red squirrels should be

monitored regularly to ensure that it is developing in

the correct way.

126. Cone crop monitoring. Long—term monitoring of cone crop

production is needed to provide a better understanding of

cone crop periodicity, predict when seed for reforestation

should be collected, and provide insight on red squirrel

population trends. Used in conjunction with weather

stations, information gathered may eventually allow accurate

prediction of cone crops.

127. Road kill reduction. Automobile traffic is expected

increase. To reduce traffic, consideration should be given

to the use of shuttles. This issue will be discussed under

the recreation management plan.

128. Management flexibility. New research information should be

incorporated into management actions as soon as possible.

13. Fire suppression. The USFS should practice vigorous fire

suppression of all unplanned fires in all Mt. Graham red squirrel

habitat areas and in areas where fire could spread to habitat

areas.

131. Fire management plan. The USFS should develop a

comprehensive fire management plan that minimizes fires in

all red squirrel occupied areas and in any areas where fire

might spread into red squirrel habitat. Specific methods to

control fires and should be outlined and long—term plans

should address fuel loading and fuel management within red

squirrel habitats. Strategies for fuel management should

retain large snag and log components in the landscape.

14. Law enforcement. Enforcement of appropriate laws and regulations

is essential to the success of increasing and stabilizing the Mt.

Graham red squirrel population.

15. Interagency cooperation. Interagency cooperation has been a

successful part of the initiation of the stabilization process.

The recent agreement between the AGFD and USFS on funding

population surveys is one example. A multi—agency Mt. Graham red

squirrel management team should provide technical assistance in

26
Implementation Schedule

Task

#

Pr

jo

it

y#

Du

ra

ti

on

Lead

Agency

F

F

FY

93

F

F

FY

94

F

F

FY

95

F

F

FY

96

F

F

FY

97

F

F

FY

98

F

F

FY

99

F

F

FY

00

Con

ments

1111 1 1 USFS 5

1112 1 4 USFS 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

121 1 4 USFS 10 10 4 4 4 4 4 4

122 1 1 USFS 25 151

1221 2 1 USFS 37

1222 2 10 USFS 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

1223 2 + USFS 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

123 2 + USFS 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

1231 2 4 USFS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1241 2 1 USFS 4

1242 2 ~ USFS 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

1251 1 4 AGFO 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

1252 2 + USFS 25 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

1253 2 + USFS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

126 2 + USFS 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

127 3 4 USFS 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

13 1 4 USFS 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2

131 1 1 USFS 10 3

14 2 + USFS 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

15 2 + USFS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

211 1 1-3 FWS 60 60 60 60

212 1 0.5 AGFO 50 50 4

213 2 + FWS 21 21

2141 2 1-3 AGFO 25 25 25

2142 2 1-3 AGFD 25 25 25

221 2 1 FWS 5

222 1 1 FWS 20

223 2 1 USFS 5

311 3 1 AGFD 10 2 2 5

312 2 1 USFS 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6

313 3 1 AGFO 2.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 7

314 3 + USFS 2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 8

32 3 + USFS 2 2

321 3 1 USFS 5.5 2.3

33
squirrel survival should be stressed. These aspects include information

about the role of the squirrel in forest ecosystem.

31. Education programs. Public education should be ongoing.

Publication and distribution of pamphlets, campground interpretive

programs, and installation of interpretive signs would help raise

public awareness. In addition, programs should be developed for

various interested public groups, both locally and regionally.

311. Develop pamphlets. Develop two levels of brochures on red

squirrel ecology. One should be for the general public and

the other for special interest groups.

312. Develop trail signs. Signs along trails and at the

boundaries of habitat management zones will increase public

awareness and inform users of ways to minimize disturbance

and habitat degradation.

313. Develop campground interpretive programs. The USFS should

develop an interpretive program for campgrounds in

conjunction with other summer campground programs,

emphasizing the importance of the red squirrel and other

threatened or endangered species.

314. Develop volunteer programs. A volunteer program should be

established at local and regional schools to help with

specific monitoring efforts. A program with college

students from localcolleges and other universities would

help raise public awareness and provide students with field

experience -

32. Columbine Visitor Information Center. The USFS has provided an

interpretive center on the forest, a portion of which should be

devoted to promoting public awareness. By stressing the

importance of the red squirrel in the ecosystem, a positive public

awareness and public support may be achieved.

321. Develop interpretive signs and exhibits. Exhibits should

emphasize the importance of the red squirrel in the

ecosystem, describe how recreation uses can be compatible

with red squirrels, and aspects of red squirrel biology.

28
Pedestrian day use (hiking, hunting, birding, fishing, picnicking, etc.)

and camping are acceptable. Pets will be leashed at all times. Trails

should be well maintained to discourage cross—country travel. Snowmobiles

are not allowed. Leave—no—trace camping ethics will be utilized. Loss or

depletion of dead and downed woody habitat components must be prevented.

Human use impacts should be evaluated annually to determine future

management needs. If necessary, recreation use may be managed by further

restriction (e.g. permit camping only, restrict hiking to trails, campstove

use only).

Zone 2

These areas contain currently suitable and occupied habitats, but the

density of squirrels is less than in Zone 1. This zone also includes areas

thought to be important dispersal corridors, but, due to topography or

other factors, they are not permanently occupied by squirrels.

Zone 2 management will be similar to management for Zone 1. The emphasis

will be placed on maintaining red squirrel habitat characteristics,

including protection from habitat loss caused by fire and disease. No

habitat loss should occur. Silviculture treatments may be necessary as

determined from habitat analyses and outlined in a comprehensive

silvicultural plan.

Pedestrian day use (hiking, hunting, birding, fishing, picnicking, etc.)

and camping are acceptable. Horses and mountain bikes are allowed, of f—

road vehicle use (including snow mobiles) is not allowed. Pets must be

leashed at all times. Trails should be well maintained to discourage

cross—country travel. Leave-no—trace camping ethics will be utilized.

Loss or depletion of dead and downed woody habitat components must be

prevented. Human use impacts should be evaluated annually to determine

future management needs. If necessary, recreation use may be managed by

further restrictions(e.g. permit camping only, restrict hiking to trails,

campstove use only). Roads currently in the area will be maintained to

current levels or reforested as determined in the reforestation plan.

Zone 3

These areas have currently or potentially (within 20 to 60 years) suitable

habitat and have widely scattered middens or are not currently occupied by

squirrels. These areas have a high short—term potential for habitat

recovery.

Zone 3 should be managed to provide suitable red squirrel habitat within 50

years. Silviculture techniques should be used to improve the habitat.

These areas are compatible with all types of dispersed recreation.

Recreation use and impacts should be evaluated yearly to determine

management needs. During silvicultural treatments, access may be

temporarily closed. Trails should be maintained at or above current

levels. Roads currently closed should be reforested according to schedules

developed in the reforestation plan.

Zone 4

These areas have high long—term (perhaps 100 to 200 years) potential. They

may need intensive management to attain their full potential as habitat for

red squirrels.

Management options for these areas include natural regeneration and

intensive silvicultural efforts to provide suitable red squirrel habitat.

Recovery is expected to require more than 25 years and may require more

than 100 years. Areas are compatible with dispersed recreation. Some

developed campgrounds may be compatible, but they will need to be evaluated

individually.

35
Kemp, G. A. and L. B. Keith. 1970. Dynamics and regulation of red squirrel

(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) populations. Ecology 51:763—779.

Lair, H. 1985. Mating seasons and fertility of red squirrels in southern

Quebec. Canadian J. Zool. 63:2323—2327.

Layne, J. N. 1954. The biology of the red squirrel, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

loqua (Bangs), in central New York. Ecol. Monog. 24—227—267.

Mannan, R. W. and A. A. Smith. 1991. Identification of distinguishing

characteristics around middens of Mount Graham red squirrels. United

States Department of Agriculture, Coronado National Forest, Tucson,

Arizona. Unpubl. Rept. 24 pp.

Marcot, B.G. and R. Holthausen 1987. Analyzing population viability of the

spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest. North American Wildlife Natural

Resource Conference. 52:333—347

Maser, C., J. M. Trappe, and R. A. Nussbaum. 1978. Fungal—small mammal

interrelationships with emphasis on Oregon coniferous forests. Ecology

59:799—809.

Mearns, E.A. 1907. Mammals of the Mexican boundary of the United States:

A descriptive catalog of the species of mammals occurring in that

region; with a general summary of the natural history, and a list of

trees. Part I. Smithsonian Institution. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 205.

Millar, J. 5. 1970. The breeding season and reproductive cycle of the

western red squirrel. Canadian J. Zool. 48:471—473.

Miller, W.H. 1991. Nutrient content of Mt. Graham red squirrel feedstuff a.

Report issued to USDA-Forest Service. Arizona State University. Tempe,

Arizona. llpp.

Minckley, W. L. 1968. Possible extirpation of the spruce squirrel from the

Pinaleno (Graham) Mountains, southcentral Arizona. J. Arizona Acad. Sci.

5:110.

Riddle, B.R., TL. Yates, and T.E. Lee Jr. Molecular divergence and

variation in the endangered Mount Graham red squirrel (Tamiasciurus

hudsonicus grahamensis). Submitted to the Journal of Conservation

Biology.

Rusch, D. A. and W. G. Reeder. 1978. Population ecology of Alberta red

squirrels. Ecology 59:400—420.

Smith, C. C. 1968. The adaptive nature of social organization in the genus

of tree squirrels Tamiasciurus. Ecol. Monog. 38:31—63.

Smith, M. C. 1968. Red squirrel responses to spruce cone failure in

interior Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 32:305-317.

s~’cer, R..B., J. C. deVos, Jr., and R. L. Glinski. 1985. Status of the

‘ount Graham red squirrel, :amiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis (Allen),

f southeastern Arizona. Urubl. Rept., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

~lbuquerque, New Mexico.

Stromberg, J.C. and D.T. Patten. 1991. Dynamics of the spruce—fir forests

on the Pinaleno Mountains, Graham Co., Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist

36(1) :37—48.

30
U)

—3

4

Figure 3

Habitat Management Zones

Mt. Graham Red Squirrel

Pmnaleno Mountains. Graham County. Arizona. 1991

P..k
IV. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Priorities in Column 2 of the following Implementation Schedule are

assigned as follows:

Priority 1

Priority 2

Priority 3

Duration:

Lead Agency:

An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or the

prevent the species from declining irreversibly in the

foreseeable future.

An action that must be taken to prevent a significant

decline in species population, habitat quality, or some

other negative impact short of extinction.

All other actions that must be taken to provide for full

recovery of the species.

KEY

Numbers are years, + indicates ongoing or continuing

duration. An ongoing task is already being implemented.

continuing task will continue once implemented.

A

USFS = United States Forest Service, AGFD = Arizona Game and

Fish Department, USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife

Service

Comments 1 First year costs include LandSat photo purchases

2 Current per acre cost estimate

3 Fuel load management may increase costs in later FYs

4 Cost highly variable depending on desired product

5 Includes reprint costs

6 Includes maintenance

7 Includes costs for 5 presentations per year

8 Includes costs for 12 presentations per year

32
Appendix C

Public Review

The draft recovery plan was advertised in the Federal Register on July 17,

1992. A 60—day comment period was provided. Review copies were sent to

Recovery Team members and consultants, affected agencies, institutions and

individuals. Review copies were provided to other parties upon request.

An asterisk (*) indicates those parties which submitted comments on the

draft plan.

Copies Sent To

Arizona Congressional delegation members

Senator Dennis DeConcini

Senator John McCain

Representative Jim Kolbe, District 5

Federal agencies

Michael J. Spear, Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Albuquerque, New Mexico

* Larry Henson, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Albuquerque, New

Mexico

James Abbott, Forest Supervisor, Coronado National Forest, Tucson,

Arizona

Rich Kvale, District Ranger, Saf ford Ranger District, Coronado National

Forest, Safford, Arizona

State agencies

* Duane Shroufe, Director, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix,

Arizona

* Dr. Michael Cusanovich, Vice President for Research, University of

Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Recovery Team members and consultants

Randall Smith, Team Leader, USDA, Forest Service, Coronado National

Forest, Tucson, Arizona

Terry B. Johnson, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona

Lesley Fitzpatrick, Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Field Office,

Phoenix, Arizona

Genice Froehlich, USDA, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest,

Safford, Arizona

R. Barry Spicer, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona

Dr. Norm Smith, Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University

of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Dr. Russell Davis, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,

University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

* Dr. Christopher Smith, Division of Biology, Kansas State University,

Manhattan, Kansas

Curt Halvorson, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Collins, Colorado

Interested parties

* Charles Babbitt, President, Maricopa Audubon Society, Phoenix, Arizona

Dr. Robin Silver, Phoenix, Arizona

* Dr. Rolf Koford, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Fish and

Wildlife Service, Jamestown, North Dakota

* Dr. Paul Young, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,

University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Copies Requested By

Howard Merrill, Green Valley, Arizona

Dr. H. Paul Friesema, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research,

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

Patrick Conner, Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin, Texas

* Dr. Roger Angel, Stewart Observatory, Tucson, Arizona

Mike Seidman, Phoenix, Arizona

39
APPENDIX A. MT. GRAHAM RED SQUIRREL HABITAT MANAGEMENT ZONES

The USDA Forest Service should adopt these zone descriptions and management

objectives to help guide the Mt. Graham red squirrel recovery efforts. The

following management objectives do not advocate that all areas in the

Pinalenos be managed exclusively for Mt. Graham red squirrels. Many other

species dependent on, or living in, coniferous forests in the Pinalenos

will also benefit from these management methods.

Vahle (1978), Froehlich (1990), and Mannan and Smith (1991) were used to

estimate the habitat conditions needed for middens and foraging areas. The

management intent is to maintain suitable habitat conditions for the Mt.

Graham red squirrel (Conner 1979).

The following habitat descriptions should be considered to be the future

desired condition of the forests. In the spruce—fir and mixed conifer

vegetation associations, the forest structure should consist of a nearly

continuous multi—layered forest with overhead canopy closure greater than

80%, basal area of at least 65 m

2/ha (275 ftt/ac) with groupings of 0.031

ha (0.078 ac) of large dominant trees ~ 40 cm (16 in) diameter at breast

height (dbh) associated with ~ 5-8 logs and 1—2 standing snags ~ 40 cm (20

in) dbh (Mannan and Smith 1991). In general, 10—15 snags/ha (4—6 snags/ac)

that are ~ 40 cm (16 in) dbh need to be maintained. Also, as many large

logs as possible need to be maintained, especially those in the later

stages of decay. The goal for each zone is to strive towards the stand

characteristics listed above, which will provide optimal habitat for a wide

variety of wildlife. The stand characteristics above are descriptive of

older seral stages of coniferous forests. Excellent red squirrel habitat

is currently defined as those areas possessing the above characteristics.

Suitable habitat generally contains many, but not necessarily all, of the

optimal characteristics. Habitat requirements included for the future

desired condition may be modified pending results of further research and

monitoring.

Management of recreational uses of the habitat management zones will be an

important component in meeting objectives. Recreational use of all zones

is allowed, although certain activities may be restricted in specific

zones. The USFS, USFWS and AGFD should meet to discuss the recreational

restrictions, necessary monitoring and future management direction.

Visitor education on the protection of red squirrels and their habitat is

essential. Visitor use must not displace or modify important red squirrel

habitat. Informational signs at major access points to zones containing

important red squirrel habitats should explain management practices.

Signing should be the minimum needed and primarily for resource protection.

Zone Descriptions (see accompanying mapfl

Zone 1

These areas are currently occupied by red squirrels. These areas have

relatively high densities of red squirrel middens in good cone crop years

and are critical to prevent extinction or irreversible decline of red

squirrels in the short term (20 to 60 years). Habitat in Zone 1 is highly

sensitive to direct (e.g., midden disturbance, squirrel harassment) and

indirect (e.g., removal of dead and down wood, soil compaction) impacts.

Management of these areas should focus on maintaining optimal red squirrel

habitat characteristics. The maximum level of habitat protection for

management and recovery should be emphasized and include maximum levels of

catastrophic fire and disease control. Because these areas are critical to

preventing the extinction or irreversible decline of the Mt. Graham red

squirrel, they are the most important areas for short-term stabilization

and no habitat loss should occur.

34
Appendix D

COMMENTS RECEIVED

A total of 21 letters of comment were received on the Mt. Graham red

squirrel recovery plan. All personal letters of comment are reproduced in

this Appendix. All comments were thoroughly reviewed and considered.

Responses to comments were dealt with in two ways: (1) editorial comments,

corrections of factual errors were incorporated directly into the text of

the plan; or (2) comments concerning plan content were addressed in

specific responses, although similar comments were grouped together and

answered as one. Specific Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) responses are

in the section of the Appendix following the reproduced letters of comment.

Numbers in the margins of the letters refer to the appropriate response or

responses for that comment. Comment letters are arranged in the order they

were received by the USFWS.

41
Zone 5

These are fragments of areas of occupied red squirrel habitat. These areas

should be protected from degradation and evaluated for their value as red

squirrel dispersal and recolonization areas. Surrounding areas should be

evaluated for potential to provide corridors from the fragmented areas to

the main red squirrel population areas. If the areas are judged to provide

suitable corridor habitat, then they should be moved to the Zone 2

management schedule. Day and ~-‘alk—incamping are compatible uses.

Recreation use in the areas should be monitored regularly. No habitat

should be lost in Zone 5.

Zone 6

These areas are above 8,000 ft elevation and have little or no potential as

red squirrel habitat. They include natural meadows, open stream—side

habitats, cienegas, cliff areas, and areas dominated by tree species not

used by red squirrels (e.g.. ponderosa pine). Management of these areas

will focus on uses other than red squirrel habitat.

Zone 7

These areas have human caused disturbances and developments (e.g.,

developed recreation sites). These areas have little current value as red

squirrel habitat. These areas do not need to be recovered for red squirrel

habitat.

36
~4t) ~~I’t

AZ6~6

~44LZIZL

43
APPENDIX B. List of Reviewers - Preliminary Draft

Peter F. Brussard, Department of Biology, University of Montana

Michael Gilpin, Department of Biology, University of California, San Diego

Daniel Goodman, Department of Biology, Montana State University

Bruce G. Marcot, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, U.S. Forest Service

Mark L. Shaffer, The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

Dr. Michael E. Soul~, Santa Cruz, California

38
From our point of view, it looks as if you want a pro-forma recovery plan that will

squeeze by legal challenges and not a recovery plan that will actually have some

power and help the squirrel’s recovery. We request you consider the suggested

personnel addition of the above to your review panel.

Sincerely /1

1/ /1

Chas. . Babbitt, President

/

45
Margie Douglas, Phoenix, Arizona

Rosemary Maddock, Tucson, Arizona

Jodi Barnhill, Springfield, Illinois

Phyllis Conner, Phoenix, Arizona

Carol Jones, SEC Donahue, Greenville , South Carolina

Doris Parker, Vinson & Elkins, Austin, Texas

Chris Driscoll, State Press, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona

Joe Marshall, Smithsonian, Washington, D.C.

Dr. Carol L. Rowe, Tucson, Arizona

Susie Brandis, Grand Canyon Chapter, Sierra Club, Tucson, Arizona

Dr. Margie McGonagill, Office of Federal Relations, University of

Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Ted Fickes, The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

Frances Werner, Tucson, Arizona

* Dr. Ron Schinoller, Saf ford, Arizona

Robert Ames, Sportsma:’ Gun Club, Scottsdale, Arizona

Harley Krager, Sports ~ Gun Club, Scottsdale, Arizona

Dee Jaksich, Graham C ~ItyChamber of Commerce, Saf ford, Arizona

* Al Dorazio, Tucson, Ar~.zona

Jorge Guido, Douglas, Arizona

David Hoy, Phoenix Gazette, Phoenix, Arizona

Steve Yozwiak, Arizona Republic, Phoenix, Arizona

* Jack Fraser, Fountain Hills, Arizona

Donna Knipschild, SEC, Inc., Sedona, Arizona

Dwight Metzger, Tucson, Arizona

* Ben Avery, Phoenix, Arizona

Richard Wilbur, Tucson, Arizona

Alan Lipman, Tucson, Arizona

Carol Williams, Fish and Wildlife Service, Dexter, New Mexico

Tara Meyer, Arizona Wildcat, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Clem Anthony, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, D.C.

John Korolsky, Phelps-Dodge Morenci, Morenci, Arizona

L.L. Hankla, Andrews & Kerthe, Washington, D.C.

Lori Ruitt, NFPA, Washington, D.C.

Kerry Pasquarelli, Project Learning Tree, Washington, D.C.

* Jonathon Lunine, Tucson, Arizona

John Daugherty, Tucson Newspapers, Tucson, Arizona

D.J. Schubert, The Fund for Animals, Silver Spring, Maryland

Beth Haviland, The Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C.

Jerome Pratt, Sierra Vista, Arizona

Lisa Jones, Tucson, Arizona

G. Donald Kucera, Tucson, Arizona

Jim Erioson, Arizona Daily Star, Tucson, Arizona

Anita Allen, CH2M Hill, Reston, Virginia

* Dr. Peter Warshall, Tucson, Arizona

Alan Parolini, FB&D Technologies, Houston, Texas

Fred C. Schmidt, Documents Department, Colorado State University, Ft.

Collins, Colorado

Richard Tobin, Springfield, Virginia

Thomas Eugene Terry, Birmingham, Alabama

Comments Also Received From

* C.D. Cochran, Graham County Chapter of People for the West, Saf ford,

Arizona

* Darryl Weech, Saf ford Arizona

* I.H. Barnett, Tucson, Arizona

* Dr. Neville Woolf, Tucson, Arizona

* Alan B. Weech, Saf ford Rotary Club, Saf ford, Arizona

* Delbert Householder, Graham County Board of Supervisors, Saf ford,

Arizona

* Michelle H. Brown, Tucson, Arizona

40
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center

Route 1. Box 96C

Jamestown. North Dakota 58401

7 August 1992

Memorandum

To: Field..Su~ervisor, Ecological Services, Phoenix, Arizona

From: Wildlife Biologist, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research

Center

Subject: Comments on Draft Recovery Plan for the Mount Graham Red

Squirrel

My editorial suggestions are on a copy (attached) of the subject

document. The general focus of the draft plan is well—placed,

emphasizing habitat protection and restoration while pointing out

the critical needs for research and monitoring. The biological

background, in particular, is organized and presented well. Some

aspects of the document, however, could be stronger.

A major objective is to “stabilize” the population. I had two

reactions. First, in some places the plan treats this objective as

separate from the objective of increasing the population (e.g., “to

increase and stabilize” [p. iii]) and in other places the plan

seems to subsume increasing under stabilization (e.g., one

“stabilization objective” is to allow the population to increase

[p. 37]). I got the impression that the objective of increasing

the population was added at some time in the development of the

document; the Table of Contents left it out of the heading for the

section that begins on p. 25. Some additional thought might be

6 given to these two objectives and how they relate.

Second, stabilization implies reduction in the amplitude of

population fluctuations. Because wide fluctuations are inherent in

red squirrel population dynamics, this objective (never having the

population fluctuate below 300) may not be achievable, even with an

increased population. The increased population far in the future

may be only 35—40% above current levels, judging by the estimated

increase in carrying capacity (p. 36). With populations at this

somewhat higher level, I would think regular dips below 300 should

be expected. If the population can be increased by this much, is

a separate stabilization objective needed?

The relevance of the habitat capability modeling of the “carrying

capacity” was not stated clearly. The concept of a carrying

capacity is usually associated with populations regulated by

-density-dependent factors. I know of no evidence that the Mt.

1 Graham red squirrel is usually regulated by such factors. The goal

of Presentin~~t.~y~ ~ estimated Carrying capacity (650 in 1991)

47
/

/

~d&6 I r

/ ~ ~

~s~~7)

2

/

z~— ~

42
Finally, I note that 1—3 years of research on population dynamics

and life history will likely be insufficient to provide all the

data needed for a good population viability analysis. Additional

research on levels of genetic variation would also be very helpful.

~ Recognizing that budgets are limited, I will stop there.

Please contact me if you want me to elaborate on any of these

comments or if I can be of further assistance.

,~34$/ kAttachment

49
-1

— ~

OFFIcERs

charles j. Babbitt President

Dick TOdd V,ce President

Ruth I. Patterson

Secretary

Herbert S. Fibel

Treasurer

coMMrrrEE

cHA:RMEN

Robert W~itzeman. M.D.

consen’euon

Richard Kaiser

Field Trips

Elaine Mayer Programs

Elizabeth N. Hatcher Mernberaip

Marian Eubanks

Education

Anthony B. Anthony

Publicity

Ken Smith

Editor

3

4

jgust4, 1992

Sam Spiller, Field Supervisor

U.S. Fish and W~dife Service

3616 W. Thomas, Suite 6

Phoenix, AZ 85019

Dear Mr. Spiller

We have received a copy of the draft recovery plan for the Mt. Graham red squirrel.

We are happy that you have included such renowned scientists as Peter Brussard and

Micahael Soule on your review committee. They have opposed the construction of

telescopes and further habitat destruction on Mt. Graham. They lend some credibilit’

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife procedural process. But, we are quite surprised that th~

committeee appears to contain no scientists familiar with the Mt. Graham biodiversity or

the squirrel.

In particular, you appear to have deliberately cut out many of the best informed

biologists. This includes Dr. Peter Warshall from the University of Arizona who has

been the most constructive critic of the USFS, UA and USFWS biology concerning the

squirrel; Drs. Duncan Patten and Julie Stromberg (Center for Environmental Studies,

ASU) who made the major pre-project survey of the forest now being destroyed by the

astronomical project; C.H. Halvorson of the USFWS who is considered the world’s field

expert on monitoring red squirrel biology; and Dr. RoIf Koford of USFWS who was

selected by USFWS to be the major biologist in reviewing the flawed, improper and

fraudulent Biological Opinion that was tampered with by your former regional director,

Michael Spear.

Your comment that it will be at least 100 years to restore the red squirrel is contradicted

by recent studies on the mountain by University of Arizona scientists. The Mannan and

Smith studies of Sept. 1991 outline regeneration of reforested habitat as “at least 230

years and may be as great as 290 years.” The transition zone ecosystem at lower

habitat where the logging has historically occurred is “a projected regeneration time of

up to 260 years” or some 30 years longer. It requires a longer time because of the —

warmer, dryer habitat at the lower transition zone.

AUG 1 2992

DEDICATED TO THE PROTECTION OF NATURAL WETLANDS iN AN ARID ENVIRONMENT

‘4.

w.

U,

4735 NORTH 53RD STREET • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 / ~ ~6

44
Phoeniy, A~.

I am sending my com’~ents on the IViount Gr~h~m Red Snuirrel

Recovery Plan to ~his o~5ce ~n.d~ wish to make this ~rotest:

This ro—called recovery t~:Lafl h~s not b~en orenarea throuTh any

nublic innut and v~v few citizens will be able to comment on it

o’ft~ide of the rsdic~l environment~2i’-ts.

In my ooinion this =Lanwill terribly urdermine the con~i~ence

o~ The nublic in wildilie m~na~ement and in the lone run harm the

credibility of the pro~’ession o~ wildlife mana-ement.

z~inc

ery

I ~m r’~tireci ~nd have no ~iile but for m2riy y~-rs I e~it~d the

ouwoor ~ges o~ theA’~’i.~ona enublic and -iorked for m~ny yea-f-s to

build u’ ~i~ntific vii1dli~e manag~rnent in •~iriona and the U.S. Ben

AUG 2 1 1992

U.S. FiSH &WiLDLIFE S~V1CE

ES ~ C~F~E-P~iOEN ‘(JZ

51
Division of Biology

Ackert Hall

S’~A~’E Manhattan, Kansas 66506-4901

oNIvE~5rz’T 913-532-6615

August 7, 1992

Mr. Sam F. Spiller, Field Supervisor

U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services

3616 W. Thomas, Suite 6

Phoenix, AZ 85019

Dear Mr. Spiller:

I read with much interest the Draft Recovery Plan for the Mount

Graham Red Squirrel that you sent me. The introductory section on

the squirrel biology was accurate and conservation measures and

strategy for stabilization seemed quite reasonable. The situation

with the Mount Graham Red Squirrel is unique in many ways: 1) The

subspecies has been isolated at a low population level (probably

1000 to 3000) for 10,000 years so that it has had time to evolve to

its isolated and endangered situation at a population size not too

different from its present endangered size of (150 to 400);

2) Individual squirrels live on easily defined middens in the center

of defended territories so that populations are relatively easy to

census and study; 3) The University of Arizona’s interest in putting

telescopes in the heart of squirrel habitat has led to a large

budget for studying the status of the squirrel. These three factors

make the Mount Graham Red Squirrel population an ideal case study

for long-term maintenance of endangered populations. Some

scientists should be hired to coordinate and write up the whole

study from the broad and general perspective of how to manage an

5 endangered species. That should include prime responsibility for

the research on the squirrel in section 21 on page 38. This should

be someone more established and with more clout than Paul Young. I

do not understand the interagency responsibilities well enough to

know how such a person would be given his/her authority, but there

is a unique opportunity to do a fundamental case study on an

endangered species and it would be a shame to miss the opportunity.

Sincerely yours,

~.446iz~k

Christopher C. Smith

Professor

CCS:dc

AUG 1. 0 1992

46
August 19, 1992

Lesley A. Fitzpatrick, member

Mt. Graham Red. Squirrel Recovery Team

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Phoenix, AZ

Dear Ms. Fitzpatrick;

I recently received a copy of the Mount Graham Red Squirrel

Draft Recovery Plan from your office and would like to include my

comments regarding it along with those others acquired as part of

the public comment stage of the document. however, my comments

have little to do with ‘~improvement of the draft because I find

it to be complete and accurate as well as, informative. But

rather, I would like to briefly state what the document tells m~,

a member of the public, on what needs to be done for the Mt.

Graham Red Squirrel in order to insure its existence into the

future. Precisely because of the fact that this stage of the

recovery process for the red squirrel allows for the public to

express its concerns, I am taking advantage of the time to state

my support for some of your •ifirst draft~ decisions, add my

doubts to some others and demonstrate my interest for the

survival of the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel.

10

‘3r~ f~—~

3,

IP

1..Ui.

15

I am familiar with the Pinaleno Mts. and the squirrel issue

having worked there as a Forest Service fire suppression

technician for three years and as the University of Arizona

intern assigned to Barry Spicer during his 1~85 summer status

survey of the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel. I also have a bachelors

degree in Wildlife Biology and am currently seeking a masters

degree in Renewable Natural Resources, both from the University

of Arizona. Simply, I would like to commend the recovery team as

well as, support their decisions regarding their plans to

continue managing essential habitat, continue monitoring the

squirrejfs and associated habitats condition into the future

(including population dynamics, midden characteristics and cone

crops), creating an emergency plan for habitat catastrophes and

designing a public education program. I would especially like to

give my support for the reforestation plan to take place within

designated critical habitat and throughout potential habitat.

Without habitat restoration, improvement and expansion, I believe

the food source for a healthy population of red squirrels may

never become available naturally and in regards to the future,

the red squirrel population itself may reach a genetic

bottleneck.

I do have some apprehensions, however, over a specific

stated plan - that of allowing day use (ie. hiking, hunting, bird

watching, fishing, picnicking) within Zone I and Zone 2. From a

biological standpoint, I believe that the added disturbance of

recreation could prove detrimental to the squirreis health and

daily activity requirements. Furthermore, the Mt. Graham issue

53
may have been to provide a basis for comparison with future

estimates (e.g., 900 in 2191), allowing an inference about how much

the average population size might be expected to increase in the

future under optimal conditions. If so, perhaps that should be

1 stated.

The speculation that the population “may be homozygous” (p. 33)

adds little and could be interpreted to mean that future population

declines probably do not pose a genetic risk due to inbreeding

depression. With today’s genetical techniques, researchers may be

able to use tissue samples from living individuals (and perhaps

museum study skins) to determine the level of heterozygosity levels

now and in the recent past, eliminating the need for speculation.

I recommend deleting this speculation.

The definition of effective population size (the number of breeding

individuals) is simplistic and incomplete. A more complete

definition and some suggestion of why the ratio of Ne to N is only

0.5 would help the reader interpret the meaning of this estimate.

Effective population size has a specific meaning in population

genetics, referring to an equivalent “ideal” population size that

would lose genetic variation through genetic drift at the same rate

as the natural population. If the population is homozygous (lacks

genetic variation), one could argue that it does not matter what

the ratio is. The presentation on p. 33 and the statement that Ne

“may become dangerously low” (p. 36) imply that Ne changes with N.

As used in population genetics, however, Ne is a summary measure

that takes into account population fluctuations. I recommend using

the expression correctly and revising the text as required.

An important habitat that should be protected and restored is

dispersal habitat. This is barely recognized in the current

document. Explicit mention of dispersal corridors is found only in

Appendix B (pp. 56, 57). The Mt. Graham red squirrel has a metapopulation structure, with isolated subpopulations (e.g., Grant

Hill, Heliograph Peak) subject to local extinctions. The relevance

7 of this population structure as it affects population vulnerability

and the importance of suitable dispersal habitat could be

discussed.

Recent experience indicates that we can expect to face again a

population decline that will lead to supplemental feeding. This

document calls for a small expenditure to develop guidelines and

procedures for such feeding. Ideally, research (and a larger

expenditure) should precede development of these guidelines. This

8 research should determine the effect of such feeding on aggressive

interactions with tassel—eared squirrels, chipmunks, and other seed

consumers and on red squirrel mortality. A properly designed

experiment, with adequate replication, would provide a sound basis

for management decisions. The experiment could be conducted on

squirrels in the White Mountains, thus avoiding unnecessary risks

to Mt. Graham red squirrels. Personally, I would place this need

above the development of captive breeding techniques in the

budgetary process.

48
R. R. Schmoller

Rt 2 Desert Hills #16

Safford, AZ 85546

(602) 428—5885

Editor,

Eastern Arizona Cour

Safford, AZ 85546

August 24, 1992

Dear Editor,

The proposed U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Draft Recovery

Plan for the Mount Graham Red Squirrel has one main fault which is

easily correctable. High Peak Road (FS 507) should be re—opened

17 rather than kept closed as U.S. Fish & Wildlife suggests. The

public (local and recreational tourists) should have access to the

unique environment on top of Mt. Graham.

The Draft Recovery Plan calls for “Reforestation of [the

recently] closed roads...” though no real arguments are presented

as to why. The High Peak Road is so narrow that only minimal

18 microclimatic edge-effect damage has occurred. It would take over

100 years for the roadway to be reforested, by which time the tiny

gain would be insignificant and irrelevant.

In addition, most of the road is not in an area of prime

squirrel habitat. Seventy—five to eighty percent of FS 507 is

rated in the proposal as either squirrel zone 4 where even “Some

developed campgrounds may be compatible.. .“ or zone 2 where

“Roads currently in the areas will be maintained...”. Only the

19 last mile or so of t:he road, near the summit, is in zone 1 where

“Day use.. .and walk-in camping use are compatible,”, but camping

and trail-resticted hiking could be imposed.

The Mount Graham Red Squirrel, according to the proposal,

has been confirmed to be quite unique, perhaps the most

different subspecies of all 25 subspecies of red squirrels in

1~1orth America. It may even be a distinct, as yet unnamed, species

(see page 3). “Our” squirrel has been isolated on Mount Graham-—

away from other red squirrels-— for at least 11,000 years. The

Mount Graham Red Squirrel is co—evolved or co—created with Mt. j.

Graham’s unique mount:ain top ecosystems, and “. . .helps ensure

survival of the ecosystem.”

The squirrel is still in real danger of extinction. Past

lumbering, and Current observatory construction threaten its

survival. While, “The chances of long—term persistence. . .are

moderate to low.” the squirrel’s situation “. . . is not hopeless

or irreversible.”

One of the best ways to give hope to the survival of our

unique Mount Graham Red Squirrel is by local and mountainvisitor support and enthusiasm. The public deserves to see our

outstanding mountain top but not everyone can hike uphill for

several miles at high altitude. We should remove the roadblock to

public access to the top of Mt. Graham so we can all better

appreciate, be proud of, and thereby help protect our planet-wide

“famous” squirrel. At the same time we should all learn to

55
GRAHAM COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

GRAHAM COUNTY COURTHOUSE - 800 MAIN STREET - PHONE 428-325u

SAFFORD, ARIZONA 85546

5 UP E RV ISO R5

DELBERT HOUSEHOLDER, CHAIRMAN

RE> BARNEY. MEMBER August 13, 1992 JOE CARTER, COUNTY MANAGER

HAYNES MOORE, MEMBER BARBARA FELIX, CLERK

Sam F. Spiller

Field Supervisor

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

3616 W. Thomas, Suite #6

Phoenix,Arizona 85019

RE: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Draft Recovery Plan

Dear Mr. Spiller:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Recovery Plan for the Mt.

Graham Red Squirrel. Graham County has reviewed the document and forwards for your

consideration the following comments.

RE: Page iii - In reviewing the Executive Summary, it appears that the cost factors

associated with the Ten Year Recovery Plan are in excess of $1.8 million dollars.

As public officials who have a fiduciary responsibility for the most efficient use

of public funds, we would hope that any plans for such expenditures are well

2 thought-out. In other words, if the expenditure of those funds are for a variety of uses related to stabilization of the habitat area, we hope you would involve

specialists not only in forest management, but scientists and others for a thorough

evaluation of the expected benefit prior to the expenditure of such large sums.

RE: Page 55 - The proposed management plan for the squirrel habitat area, (Appendix

B, Zone 1), is consistent with our view on the habitat area since the squirrel was

10 listed. We have always believed that day use for those activities identified on

page 55 would not negatively impact the squirrel’s survival. We hope that such

use of the area will be a component of the final document.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed plan.

Respectfully,

AUG ~ 0 ~.%2

, ‘7

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ANI~FFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
J.C. Fraser

I 4g56 E. Windyhill Rd.

Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268

(602) 837-3026

FAX (602) 837-6305

Lynn Stares

Acting Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 1306

Albuquerque, N.M. 87103

RD

DRD

AFF —~

ALE..—

August 22, 1992 APA~—.—

Dear Ms. Stares:

Attached is a copy of my comments to the Phoenix Office of

Ecological Services on their imdated draft Recovery Plan for the

Mt. Graham red squirrel. You will note that I have asked that all

review comments be made a part of the draft to be submitted to your

Regional Office and that I be provided with a copy of that draft.

Importantly, I ask your office to issue a pre-adoption draft for

public review before final decision on the Recovery Plan. That

pre-adoption draft should reflect any changes proposed by the

Regional Office and include all comments received by the Regional

Office additional to those received by the Phoenix Office. I

request that your office provide me with a copy of such a pre—

adoption draft for my review and comment. This process should be

accomplished expeditiously. It is unfortunate that it has taken so

many years to produce this draft but a few more days to improve its

acceptability is more than justified.

Through this process public understanding and confidence in the

adoption procedures will be improved. I will be grateful for your

implementation of these procedures.

cc: Arizona Game and Fish Department

USFWS, Phoenix

Maricopa Audubon Society

Sierra Club

Arizona Wildlife Federation

~ecA SEP 3 1992 ~sS~Re~ofl2

F~fl ‘~D

E

t’ ..v

— i..~.. ~ —

x’~3 Zb ‘92

DRD

2

Jack C. Fraser

57
From: B’~n Avery

2 .T~i 1 ~ A¶r~

Coinm-nts on ~ount Graham R~d Sr,u~_rrel Draft Recovery P1 ~n:

riaving read and reread ~o~tions of the ~ourit Graham ~ Sauirrel

Recovery Plan, I would likc~ to comment on that nroDosed ~len from

the stand~oint of my ~3 years residence in Arizona and a life~ime,

startin~ as a youn~ster, in hunting rodents from Ora.lrle cogs,

rabbits, ground squirrels to tree squirrels in this st~te.

I cannot believe that a team of bioloqists %uld make the

recommendations found in this report concerning the “recovery”

of a rodent ocoulation, ~a-ticularly a s~u~rrel. Certainly they did

not examine from a broad oersrective. I hep~ they did not ~n~a~e in

an exercise ,iust to bolster the political endangerment of the red

s2ulrrels cm Mount Graham to blocY develo~m~nt of the University of’

Arizona astronomy Dro~ect.

:~ ~±or~cally s~ui---rel poculations in the Southwest, ma.r- i’~ul’rly

Arizona, have fluctuated tremendously. I am c~r~~cularly co~n~zent

of severe low populations of sau~r~ls in ~he late l~3Os—early NL.Os,

and the 1960s. In this study it is noted that the red scuir’-el on

yount Graham ‘::as so sc2rce in the 1960s tha~ Dr. M.L. I~inckley of

Arizona State University was led to conclude that they had become

12 ~.xtinct in l96~..

There is crobably no doubt the extre~~~cly low co-~ula -ions of’

squirrels and o~her ~-odents r~sults to some extent from d’~outh, but

it ~aa h’~en my ex~r~~ce to ~ind very low comula~or~ ~ollowin~

every soculation exclosion C: these c’e~tu~es.

This would indidate to me th~ 1~r~ coculaTlons result in ~ie—off

from dA~ase. I think some of these d1⁄2eases ~ scread by a ~‘1.eaor

m:~e.

1-here is no ~ -‘itt that ~iu~r—els are a”fected by credation, but

10 j I have n ver felt that creca- ~on was a croblem. IC anyth in- it may

benefit all rodent scecies by t~ndin.~r to become ~r~ac~r when the

I rodent populations are high, th~eby becoming a leveling factor.

It is not my ourcose to tear the recovery elan apart because I

recozn~ze much work has gone into it. But from a bro~d cerscective

the only recommendation in that plan that will helo assure the long

term continued existence o~ the Lount Graham Red Squirrel is the

13 restoration of habitat caused by log~ing and blowdowns. yet acoarently

the recovery team allocates only $77~e~j over a 1wo—year period

to this task.

The other actions needed, according ~o the retort, would not be

n-eded at s.ll as far as the red squirrel is concerned.

Let us be honest. 1. Protection and monitoring existins ooou~ation

14 ~nd habitat. 2. Det~rminin~ life history and habita.t ~colo-y. Li.• Int— ~ =~. iting scecles and habitat orotection actions for the Pinal’~no l3⁄4ountains will do nothing >ut orovide jobs for the many unemcloyed

biologists that can be excected to grow with time and far exceed the

nearly $2 million listed in the report.

Such wasted money could better be allocated to soec~es that

2 are really cndargered.

52
2

Recommendation: Provide for a specific review of allowed

recreation uses in Zones 1 and 2 at the end of the first three

15 years of implementing the Recovery Plan.

2. Overly Optimistic Habitat and Population Pro-jections: Perhaps

the most important weakness of the report is its overly optimistic

projections of red squirrel habitat restoration and population

recovery. Currently the prime habitat for the Mt. Graham red

squirrel is limited and much of its former habitat (upon which

recovery through restoration depends) has been seriously impaired

by fires, logging, developments, etc. Old-growth, large tree,

closed canopy spruce and fir forests with considerable dead and

downed trees at elevations above 8,000 ft. are habitat

requirements. To produce such forests through restoration of

impaired habitat areas on Mt. Graham and thereby creating

sufficient new habitat to stabilize the red squirrel population at

900 to 1000 in less than 200 to 260 years is unrealistic. Such

optimism is unwarranted and cannot be substantiated. To say that

the current 1991 habitat capacity is approximately 650 red

squirrels is unsubstantiated by actual population estimates in the

last ten years. A number of statements in the draft reflect this

unwarranted optimism:

a. Page iv: “At least 10 years will be needed to

stabilize the Mt. Graham red squirrel population and at

least 100 years will be needed to restore Mt. Graham red

squirrel habitat.”

b. Page 7: “——— the USFS estimated current and future

habitat capability for the Pinalenos, and determined a

current 1991 capacity of approximately 650 red squirrels

(USFS unpub. data) .“ “Assuming natural succession, with

no catastrophic events, the model predicted that in 200

years the carrying capacity would increase to

approximately 900 squirrels.”

c. Page 31: “Using the most recent habitat and density

information derived from surveys, a current carrying

capacity of approximately 650 red squirrels may be

possible under optimal conditions and applying squirrel

density estimates a predicted future maximum carrying

capacity of approximately 900 plus squirrels can be

maintained in the long term (100-200 years into the

future).”

d. Page 32: “Restoration of higher population levels

will be possible only when several successive years of

good or heavy cone crops occur. Currently, the small

amount of habitat available to the red squirrel ensures

59
has been so highly publicized that I am positive that, once these

..jones are opened, the public will immediately begin to seek out

red squirrels and their middens. From experience, the squirrels

are very territorial and will attempt to defend their middens

from even the largest creatures (ie. humans). This added,

needless stress will only use up valuable energy that should be

used in foraging, food storage, reproduction, nest preparation

and territorial defense against the tassel—eared squirrel. There

is also the potential problem of recreators directly disturbing

middens in such a way that cones are displaced and become

15 unavailable for the squirrels when winter sets in. I urge you to

reconsider this plan and continue restricting recreation to zero

within these zones, at least until the squirrel has the chance to

begin expanding its range. Even though it was mentioned that day

use will be “managed through restrictionsi, there is still no

effective control over all who would visit these areas.

My other concern is with the telescope facility. Throughout

the document, it was made quite evident that habitat loss has, is

and will be one of the main factors of the squirrels decline.

And, even though I understand the telescope facility has gotten

the OK to move forward from the U.S. government, I cannot let the

point go by that this type of habitat destruction, although

declared of scientific value, is still habitat destruction and

will prove just as harmful to the continued existence of the red

16 squirrel as any small scale clear cut operation. This is

especially true now when the red squirrel is still considered in

danger” and is still relaying on a fairly small area for its

necessities AN~ because the telescope facility is to be built

exactly within this critical habitat. Therefore, I would like to

reinstate my objection to the telescope facility to be located on

the top of Mt. Graham as I have always done in the past and am

now even more convinced of after reading the Mt. Graham Red

Squirrel Draft Recovery Plan.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to remain involved

in the red squirrel issue and, after reading the Draft Recovery

Plan, becoming more informed of its progress and your future

plans for its continued existence. If you have any questions or

comments regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me.

I genuinely wish the recovery team luck.

Sincerely,

Michelle H. Brown

4741 N. Palisade Dr.

Tucson, AZ 65749

(602)749—1905

54
4

the red squirrel population highly questionable within the time

frames suggested in this draft.

The following quote from the September, 1991 paper of R. William

Mannen and Andrew A. Smith (Identification of Distinguishing

Characteristics Around Middens of Mount Graham Red Squirrels) is

indicative of the time span needed to regenerate old growth habitat

on Mt. Graham:

“Regenerating potential midden sites will require long

periods of time. For instance, the mean age of dominant

trees, based on ages from breast height, was 212 years at

spruce/fir middens, and it probably took these trees 20

to 30 years to reach breast height (Stromberg and Patten

1989). An additional 50 years might be necessary to

produce the largest decayed snags and logs (Harmon et al.

1989). Thus, the total time to naturally regenerate

sites suitable for midden establishment is at least 230

years and may be as great as 290 years. In the

transition—zone forest, similar calculations lead to a

projected regeneration time of up to 260 years.”

4 Even if we consider that some degraded areas may have already

started on the path of regeneration it cannot account for the

optimistic forecasts implied in the report. Early logging (1890 to

1946 was mainly in ponderosa pine. From 1946 to 1963 there was no

logging. The last major logging (1963-1972) occurred only 20 to 30

years ago so regeneration is still in its infancy. Many areas on

Mt. Graham may take well over 300 years to regenerate to the point

of providing good habitat for the red squirrel.

Restoration of Mt. Graham red squirrel habitat is a slow process

and it is irresponsible to assume it can be accomplished in a short

period of time. This is why it is so very important to preserve

every acre of existing habitat if the Mt. Graham red squirrel is to

be saved. The viability of the population that may be improved by

habitat restoration is, unfortunately, dependent on the habitat now

existing, not that which can be hoped for 200 years or more from

now. Reliance on unrealistically short restoration times to

project overly optimistic population increases is a disservice to

the task of protecting an endangered species. The Recovery Plan

should clearly face the issue — saving the species is dependent

first on preserving every bit of existing habitat and in the long

term its recovery to an out-of-danger healthy population will

depend on enlarging its existing habitat through restoration and

improvement programs that may take 200 or more years to achieve.

Recommendation: The habitat restoration and population recovery

times and numbers be revised to reflect at least a 200 year

61
food storage areas, vital to their overwintering and :.ong term

survival. We should avoid trampling or digging into these cone—

storage sites.

21 We don’t close down Main Street because someone might break a window, do we? Without unobstructed public access to the

top of Mt. Graham (via High Peak Road) some of the public is more

apt to resent, unfairly, the innocent squirrels, rather than love

and appreciate Mt. Graham and all her creatures.

Sincerely,

R. R. Schmoller, Ph.D.

formerly a principal high—altitude

scientist with the U.S. International

Biological Program

cc: KATO

Graham County Chamber of Commerce

Graham County Board of Supervisors

Safford City Council

San Carlos Apache Tribal Council

Huachuca Audubon Society

Tucson Audubon Society

Grand Canyon Chapter, Sierra Club

Arizona Game & Fish Commission, Non-Game Animals

Coronado National Forest

U.S. Representative Jim Kolbe

U.S. Senator Dennis DeConcinni

U.S. Senator Albert Gore

56
6

Recommendation: Add a #4 “Implementation” to page 38 with a sub

entry 32 reading: “411. Implementation via USFS Forest Management

Plan”. On Page 47 add an entry #4 “Implementation” with a sub

heading: “411. Recommend implementation through revisions in the

Forest Management Plan of the USFS to incorporate the provisions of

the Recovery Plan. The process could be aided by establishment of

23 an interagency implementation group with representatives of the

USFS, USFWS and the Arizona Game and Fish Department.”

5. Captive Breedincz - PaQe 45. #222: At this stage, with the near

extinction status of the Mt. Graham red squirrel, the all-important

management action is to preserve existing habitat and maintain the

existing population in as natural, undisturbed condition as

possible. To remove Mt. Graham red squirrels from the present low

population for captive breeding is to place the remaining

population in further jeopardy of extinction. If habitat loss is

going to be the cause of extinction then captive breeding has

little value except possibly to preserve a gene pool for

undetermined uses elsewhere. It will not save the Mt. Graham red

squirrel on Mt. Graham. Captive breeding could actually detract

from the concerted efforts needed to protect existing habitat. It

could become a crutch upon which improper reliance is placed to the

24 detriment of habitat protection. Captive breeding should not be

considered until it is determined that the habitat cannot be

protected and restored to maintain the population. When that

decision is made is the time to consider a captive breeding

program. The argument that it then may be too late to preserve the

gene pool is academic.

Recommendation: Delete Section #222 on Page 45.

6. Su~~lemental FeedinQ - PaQe 45. #221: Supplemental feeding

results in an artificial support of the population carrying with it

the dangers of artificial food dependency, and increased disease

and predation problems. It can also become a crutch upon which

management might rely to the detriment of vigorous habitat

protection and restoration. There should be no detraction from the

absolute necessity of protecting the remaining habitat and

enlarging that habitat through restoration of impaired areas.

8 Supplemental feeding will do nothing for saving and restoring

habitat on Mt. Graham. Supplemental feeding has no place in the

Recovery Plan for the Mt. Graham red squirrel.

Recommendation: Delete Section #221.

7. Weakness of Text ReQardincT Habitat Protection Measures: In

pages 39-47 there appears to be a high degree of specificity

regarding recommended management programs, research and public

education compared to habitat protection actions. Since habitat

63
J.C. Fraser

14956 E. Windyhill Rd.

Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268

(602) 837-3026

FAX (602) 837-6305

August 22, 1992

Sam Spillar, Field Supervisor

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

3616 West Thomas Road Suite 6

Phoenix, Arizona 85019

Dear Mr. Spillar:

The purpose of this letter is to convey my review comments on the

Service’s undated Draft Recovery Plan for the Mount Graham Red

Squirrel. It is my understanding that public comments will be

received by your office until September 15, 1992.

First, I would like to request that all review comments received by

your office, including mine, be made a part of the draft report to

be sent to your Regional Office in Albuquerque for approval.

Secondly, I ask that I be provided with a copy of the report as it

is sent to the Regional Office, including all comments received and

any comments of your office on the comments received on the draft.

The inclusion of comments received should include any received from

the six reviewers listed on page 53 of the draft Recovery Plan.

Thirdly, in submitting your office’s draft to the Regional Office

in Albuquerque please relay the request that before adopting the

22 Recovery Plan the Regional Director issue a draft of his or her

proposed adoption version for public review. The proposed adoption

draft would reflect the Regional Director’s proposed changes in the

draft submitted from your office and include all comments that may

have been received additional to those received by your Phoenix

Office. This process should be done expeditiously so as not to

unduly prolong the adoption action. It has taken too many years to

reach this stage but a few more days to insure adequate public

•review and acceptance is important.

Your special attention to these requests will be appreciated and

if, for any reason, you cannot satisfy them I would be grateful for

your notification and the reasons therefore.

My comments specific to the undated draft Recovery Plan follow:

1. Recreation Uses: The allowed recreation uses in Zones 1 and 2

constitute a significant relaxation regarding potential disturbance

factors for the red squirrel. I see no problem with day use for

hiking, bird watching, etc. at present levels of recreation use but

if recreation use increases in the next few years in Zones 1 and 2,

hunting, overnight camping, fishing and presence of pets (even

with a leash requirement) could conceivably result in undesirable

15 disturbance before red squirrel population recovery reaches

stabilized conditions. AUG 2 5 1992
8

in terms of geography, habitat type, importance to the red squirrel

and proposed recovery management objectives and actions. (As noted

elsewhere, the habitat protection measures should also be spelled

out in more detail in the main text on page 39)

In summary, the draft Recovery Plan constitutes, in general, and

with the exceptions noted above, a reasonable proposal for

management action to save the Mt. Graham red squirrel. Weakening

rather than strengthening the habitat protection aspects of this

draft through subsequent revision or by inadequate implementation

could render the Plan ineffective. Significant improvement of the

Plan could be achieved by strengthening its habitat protection

thrust and placing less reliance on overly optimistic results from

restoration efforts.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and I trust

they will receive consideration.

Sincerely,

cc: Regional Director, USFWS, Albuquergue

Maricopa Audubon Society

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Sierra Club

Arizona Wildlife Federation

Jack C. Fraser

65
3

that even in times of good food availability, populations

will not greatly expand. Unless the habitat is improved,

population fluctuations could occur that would result in

numbers falling below viable levels.” (Note that this

statement conflicts with the unwarranted optimism on

habitat restoration and population projections elsewhere

in the report)

e. Page 36: “The population is isolated. The

population is inherently vulnerable to extinction. With

aggressive habitat protection and restoration (during the

next 100 years) it may be possible to increase the

carrying capacity by 35-40% (to approximately 1000

squirrels) .“ “With a current estimated maximum

sustained population of approximately 650 squirrels,

chance extinction is a real and potentially imminent

threat (M. Schaffer, The Wilderness Society, pers.

comm.). The chances of long term persistence of the Mt.

Graham red squirrel must be classified as moderate to

low. With aggressive habitat protection and restoration,

and an improved distribution of red squirrels on the

4 mountain, relative security could be possible.”

f. Page 56: “Zone 3 should be managed to provide

suitable red squirrel habitat within 50 years.”

g. Page 57: (In reference to Zone 4) “Management

options for these areas include natural regeneration and

intensive reforestation efforts to provide suitable red

squirrel habitat. Recovery is expected to require more

than 25 years and may require more than 100 years.”

(This implies recovery between 25 and perhaps 125 years

which is overly optimistic).

The following statement on Page 33 appears to be an accurate

assessment of the current population and habitat situation and

hardly substantiates the current habitat capacity estimate of 650

red squirrels: “Because of reduced habitat and subsequently the

carrying capacity of the remaining habitat, the population will

fluctuate around lower average population. Low points in the cycle

may be below population viability.”

Prevention of such fluctuations by providing high quality habitat

in all vegetation associations as proposed in the last sentence of

paragraph 1 on page 33 cannot be fully achieved in the next 50 to

100 years as suggested in other places in this draft. Even if

present habitat can be fully protected from further impairment by

development and natural catastrophes, the time to produce mature,

canopied forests with downed trees will make early stabilization of

60
REVIEW OF THE RECOVERY PLAN

FOR THE

MT. GRAHAM RED SQUIRREL

AUGUST 24, 1992

PREPARED BY:

PETER WARSHALL, CHAIRMAN

SCIENTISTS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF MT. GRAHAM

4500 West Speedway

Tucson, Az 85745

Phone: 602-622-8988

Fax: 602-624-5406

1

67
5

requirement to produce suitable red squirrel habitat from former

but degraded, destroyed, damaged or deforested habitat areas and

that an estimate of current habitat carrying capacity reflect a

more realistic appraisal based on past population estimates and the

current near—extinction level of the population. The Recovery Plan

should clearly differentiate between the immediacy of habitat

preservation and the long—term achievements of degraded habitat

4 restoration. Its readers and the public should not be misled by

repeated optimism based on unrealistic projections of population

increases resulting from “silviculture treatments”, reforestation,

etc. The Recovery Plan should make it clear that realizing the

benefits of degraded habitat restoration will only come if existing

habitat is preserved to carry the species through the next

approximately 200 or more years.

3. “Mitigating” Future Habitat Losses: On Page 27, paragraph 2

there appears to be an unintended application of the word

“mitigated” to both past and future habitat losses incurred as the

result of both natural and development losses. Protecting the small

amount of existing habitat is absolutely the most imperative

management action if this endangered species is to be saved.

Throughout the draft Recovery Plan emphasis is placed on protecting

1 existing habitat. However, this last sentence of paragraph 2

implies that future habitat losses must be “mitigated’ which

conflicts with the need to “protect” existing habitat. This

sentence should be revised.

Recommendation: Revise the last sentence, paragraph 2, Page 27 to

read: “Habitat lost or impaired by natural catastrophes or past

development must be mitigated and future habitat losses from

development prevented.”

4. Recovery Plan Meaningless Unless Implemented: Unless the USFS

implements a Recovery Plan by incorporating it in its Forest

Management Plan and follows through on administrative actions and

aggressively seeks the necessary appropriations to carry out its

provisions the Plan could become an unused, useless document. The

Recovery Plan text should recognize this weakness and specifically

recommend that the Recovery Plan be implemented by the Forest

Service through appropriate revisions and incorporation in the

23 Forest Management Plan. Further, the Recovery Plan text could

appropriately suggest that an interagency implementation group

(such as was established for the bald eagle) be established to

advise the USFS on implementation as a means of carrying out the

intent of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act which requires

consultation.

62
SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMMENTS

1. Recovery Plan (RP) does not meet policy guidelines of USFWS.

2. There is a serious lack of measurable criteria for declassification

(endangered to threatened to delisting) and reclassification

(increasing, decreasing, stable). The benchmarks or targets for

declassification and reclassification are not as specific as possible

as recommended by USEWS. For instance, there are no clear criteria

of how to distinguish annual population flux from clear trends in

population size. No criteria and methods for determining Changes in

the probability of extinction are given.

3. The main technique for monitoring appears to be the bi-annual

midden inventory. Major issues arise in using this inventory as the

sole or predominant indicator for declassification or

reclassification. For instance, are new midden sites replacing

abandoned midden sites at equal rates? Are alternative census

techniques available: to assess midden site stability? to determine

the proportion of squirrels using two middens? and to determine the

relationship between cone crop production (for each vegatative

association) and the proportion of multiple midden use by a single

squirrel? Are the density of midden distributions homogenous in

each vegetative type? How does lack of homogeneity skew

population size assessment?

4. Some relevant background material is missing or its relationship

to recovery is not explained (e.g., decadal losses from lightning,

windthrow, deadfall, ice storms, and tree disease in forest patches;

dispersal distance, corridors, and distance required to find mate;

lack of understory food; insect larvae reduction of cone crop; cone

sterility; activity areas and density estimates; in-situ vs. inmigration replacement of dead squirrels).

5. The RP lacks a discussion of habitat losses per decade (magnitude,

area, predictability, frequency). These setback recovery rates. They

should be a priority research task.

6. The RP lacks a clear baseline on the status of habitat quality

assessement: map scale; ground-truthing vs. aerials; confidence in

acreage surveyed and habitat quality score cards; etc.

3

69
7

protection is the most important management action for the survival

of the Mt. Graham red squirrel it would improve the Recovery Plan

if more emphasis was placed on it in pages 37 and 39 rather than

leaving it almost entirely to Appendix B. Habitat protection

actions in Appendix B are generally good but their main points

should appear in t~.e body of the Plan. If for some reason ~ither

25 the USFWS or USFS should alter the Habitat Management Zone concept

of Appendix B some of its important habitat protection actions

could be lost.

Recommendation: Strengthen the Recovery Plan management action

se-~tions on pages 37 and 39 (particularly the narrative section

s~rting on page 39) with respect to habitat protection by adding

the principal habitat protection measures set forth in Appendix B

without reference to the Zone concept per se.

8. The Habitat Management Zones Ma~ (Figure 3, Pane 59) Is

Inadecmate: The map on page 59 is extremely difficult to relate

red squirrel habitat and geographical features to the proposed

zones.

Recommendation: Revise Figure 3 into a larger map of the zones

overlaying more detailed geographical features and midden locations

or provide two maps, one showing zones overlaying more geographical

features and one overlaying midden locations.

9. The Management Zone Descriptions in Appendix B Are Inadeguate

:

It is impossible to determine what habitat types, locations and

importance to the Mt. Graham red squirrel are intended by the

various zone descriptions. Some descriptions are nice sounding but

26 couched in vague language (e.g. For Zone 4: “These areas have high

long-term [perhaps 100 to 200 years] potential” -- “Recovery is

expected to require more than 25 years and may require more than

100 years.”) This entire Appendix B needs improvement for

clarity. The Zone descriptions should be sufficiently clear to

stand by themselves without reference to a map (which, in this case

is also inadequate) and they should relate to geographical and

habitat features important to recovery of the Mt. Graham red

squirrel and have clear, distinguishing management actions for

recovery.

It is not clear what is meant by: “The management intent is to

maintain average suitable habitat conditions for the Mt. Graham red

squirrel --“ appearing on the first page of Appendix B. If this

has some special meaning to the Recovery Plan then it needs

amplification. In its present form it has little meaning.

Recommendation: Rewrite Appendix B to improve clarity,

particularly the Zone Descriptions which should describe each Zone

64
PART 1: POLICY AND GUIDELINE PROBLEMS

WITH THE RECOVERY PLAN

1 1. What is the status of the Mt. Graham red squirrel (RS) in the L U SEWS Species Recovery System? Please add to RP.

2. Was a Recovery Outline prepared sixty days after listing? If so, 27 please send a copy. If not, when was it prepared? Please send copy.

3. Have any Species Status Reports or Recovery Expenditures Reports

28 been issued? When? Please send copies. These should be cited in RP.

4. Did the Species Status Report list the RS as improving, declining

29 or stable? This should be cited and reasons for assessment provided.

5. Page 2 of the P & G document (Policy and Guidelines) requires that

USEWS be “as specific as possible” as to goals, recovery tasks,

duration and costs and responsible parties and interests. Page 3

states that the “RP must identify site-specific management

actions.” Page 4 states that there should be “measurable criteria”

and trackable recovery tasks.” It goes on to state that research and

management actions should be delineated, justified, and given

schedules. These criteria have not been met.

What are the criteria that will allow the RS to be declassified from

endangered-to-threatened or Please state

these in simple language as required by P &G document and page I30 11. Will the criteria for declassification to threatened be different

than delisting?

Does the USFWS believe that the RS will never be declassified

because of natural losses to habitat and the chronic shortage of

habitat? If so, please state this explicitly.

Are the criteria for declassification: 95% probability of persistence

at a reproductively effective population of 300 in the spring

census for 100 years? If not, why not? What replaces this criteria?

If this or some similar criteria are the goal, when might they be

achieved? State optimistic and pessimistic time-frame.

5

71
Scientists for the Preservation of Mt. Graham

4500 West Speedway • Tucson • AZ. 85745

Phone: 602 - 622 - 8988 • Fax: 602 - 624 - 5406

Enclosed is a paper by Dr. Peter Warshall that reviews

the recovery plan (RP) for the Mt. Graham red squirrel (RS).

Because of your deadlines and costs, it is impossible to send

this paper to all 350 members of Scientists for the

Preservation of Mt. Graham. We cannot claim unanimity of

agreement. SPMG has sent copies to your reviewers -- many of

whom are members of SPMG or have provided affidavits related

to SPMG concerns.

In Part 1, we have reviewed the Recovery Plan (RP) from

the point of view of the USFWS “Policy and Guidelines for

Planning and Coordinating Recovery of Endangered and

Threatened Species.” In Part 2, we have reviewed the general

gaps in presentation. In Part 3, a detailed page-by-page

critique of the RP is given. A summary of major points is

provided and crucial points are highlighted in bold face type.

Thank you for an opportunity to review the RP.

SEP 3 l99~

Dear USFWS:

66
must be decadal, is there funding available to track this change in

population size?

What measurement will be used? Running average of active

middens? Harmonic mean? Arithmetic mean? Other?

What confidence limits and variance will be used for each criteria

employed in the Species Status Report effort?

Which bio-statisticians were consulted to establish these criteria?

What measurements will be used to track increases or decreases in

“carrying capacity units(ccus)” for the RS? Are you tracking ccus by

the changes in population and the population by assumed changes in

ccus? Have you attempted to separate these out?

What mapped area will be re-surveyed for changes in quality of

habitat? What sort of random sampling of vegetative associations

31 will be used to track recovery? What schedule is set for this

tracking? Which individuals in which agencies are the responsible

parties for tracking changes in habitat quality? What is the cost? As

noted, the “RP must identify site-specific management actions.”

Will the USFS “habitat scorecard” be used to assess habitat quality?

Please send a copy. Will it be revised? If so, by whom and when?

There is no discussion in RP of this crucial measurement

task.

Is USFWS relying on the Habitat Capability Model to track ccus? If

so, there should be a research task to verify its validity and

drawbacks. It requires two steps with “expert opinion” and only two

variables out of the six-to-eight of crucial importance to RS

survival. It requires some major assumptions about successional

stages when used in a predictive manner. The USDA (1988) lists

many of its drawbacks. If not the HOM, what other measurement of

ccus is under consideration? What other models?

Are the results of any habitat quality model to be used in the

declassification process? Which?

7

73
b. Re-initiation of consultation under Section 7 on the basis of

Umodifications of the astrophysical or other USFS actions that cause

an effect not considered in the biological opinion.”

c. Re-initiation of consultation under Section 7 on the basis of

an affect to critical habitat designated since the biological

opinion.” For example, there is no habitat and environmental

assessment of the 14 summer cabins and Church of Christ

Bible Camp and road removal as required by Section 605 (b)

of AICA. This should be a task of the RP.

d. Criteria for tracking and measuring Incidental take” as

suggested in the biological opinion. The incidental tack as

presently defined is not trackable nor measurable. Better

criteria for incidental take are available.

e. The importance of dispersal habitat not covered in the

biological opinion. The USFWS blue-ribbon team (USEWS, 1990) has

pointed to this omission. There is no research project and no

site-specific discussion of dispersal areas in the RP. Why?

f. The critical habitat designation is based on out-of-date

information (see Warshall letter to USFWS, 1987 and USEWS, 1990).

There is a conflict between agencies about altering critical habitat

boundaries. USFS “essential habitatu needs to be reconciled with

USEWS critical habitat.

Conflicts between desired goals of AGFD and USFWS and the

enforcement or implementation acceptable to USFS is perhaps the

major issue. Since USFS has the ability to veto USFWS and

AGFD recommendations (and has), this veto power is

perhaps the major driving force abetting extinction and

preventing recovery. These differences should be defined

carefully and listed under ‘lnter-agency cooperation.” Other

issues will be listed in Parts 2 and 3.

8. P & G (page 1-14) states that the RP consider “available options

for land protection.” It also calls for a •set of strategies” and some

34 preliminary targets.” I could find no section of the RP that

addressed options, especially for Zones 1 and 2. Where are the

strategies (e.g., no habitat destruction in Zone 1 and

conflicts preventing implementation) listed?

9

75
7. The RP mixes up results from simulation models with results

from fieldwork research without enough explanation of the

biological and mathematical assumptions in the

simulation models. This is particularly true for the Habitat

Capability Model and the “model” implied in the extrapolation of

active middens/expected middens to total population size.

8. The recovery tasks are not clearly delineated and justified as

recommended by USEWS guidelines. That is, it is not clear how the

required research will move recovery torward targetted goals or

how they fit into a declassification strategy. The three-tier priority

evaluations for recovery tasks need extensive revision.

9. The management actions are not as specific as possible as

recommended by USFWS. There are very few site-specific

management actions. Suggestions are provided.

10. The available options for land protection are not addressed as

recommended bu USEWS guidelines. Example options are suggested.

11. There are no risk management stategies with clear criteria and

measurable “triggers” for emergency actions, damage control, and

mitigation.

12. The section on inter-agency cooperation hides a major threat to

recovery: lack of agreement between agencies; the veto power of the

USFS over recommendations of USFWS and the AGFD; disagreements

on Sectios 4, 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act; lack of

cooperation on the inter-agency district team in assessing

maintenance” tree cutting, dog control and other limitations on

dispersed and drive-in recreation.

13. There is an overuse of “boiler-plate” language with such buzz

words as stabilize, viable, and recovery.

4

70
PART 2: GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE RECOVERY PLAN

*Many terms are used without any standards, thresholds or

37 measurable definitions. In particular, “viable” and “stabilize” are

foggily expressed (e.g., p27, p32, p33. p37). Can you clarify the

meanings on these and other pages?

* A glossary concerning the following terms is needed: midden site,

midden area, midden location, activity area, home range, territory.

There is much confusion p5, p8, p23.

* Be more careful distinction between subspecies studies and

extrapolation to grahamensis (e.g., p1,¶12). Microclimate, different

1numbers and species of food trees, topography, lack of understory

food supply, two rainfall seasons, lack of mammalian tree predators,

and many other factors such as genetics may make generalizations

unreliable.

38 *ln general, slope limitations on midden siting are not mentioned.

I What is limiting slope in USFWS opinion: 60% or 45%?

*There appears to be no environmental baseline, research or

monitoring addressing dispersal corridors. Why?

*The minimal distance required to find a mate is not known. This

should be mentioned in RP as many of the more isolated squirrels

may not participate in reproduction. This lowers the effective pop. It

may require a special research program to determine effective vs.

total pop.

*Throughout the report, the scale of mapping is not stated. Some

recovery tasks can be a waste of money without proper scaling.

*A Table is required or, at least, a statement qualifying your

assertions about the confidence USFWS feels in using any particular

40 piece of data. For instance, are you confident that 2700 acres is excellent to good habitat or not confident or just don’t know? Are

you confident of your future habitat situation (p30) and what would

increase confidence or make you not so confident.

*There appears to be a confusion within the document

between environmental baseline and risk management. There

41 is a lot of baseline info but no work on risk management. In other

11

77
How will the USEWS measure the components of this goal: what

model? what census technique? what confidence interval? Is the

POPDYNE model to be used? If not, what model of population

dynamics? What data are most important for model selected? Have

research priorities included the data most needed for a pop dynamics

model of persistence? There is no RP discussion of models and

criteria for species status declassification nor bi-annual

reclassification nor a discussion of models and their

ability to track population status. There are no research

tasks to specifically address choice of models to be used

in tracking recovery measurements.

While the census technique appears to be an extrapolation of

population size from active middens/expected total middens for

each vegetation association, there appears to be no research

task to assess the pros and cons of this mathematical

“model.” Why? This should be a priority as many experts in

population censusing of RS have doubts about the extrapolation

process (e.g., how well does one active midden reflect one living

squirrel? What is inter-observer reliability of midden status

assessment? When does one squirrel/one midden criteria break

down? When is a midden site considered abandoned and removed

from the statistical equations estimating population size?).

31

What other census techniques are being considered to help verify the

validity of the present measurement technique? The RP does not

directly address this dilemma nor set research goals to resolve it.

Without resolution, the measurement of real population change is

impossible.

Will the USFWS use the “total adult population in the spring census”

or the “effective population in the spring census” or some other

criteria? Why?

What other “measurable criteria” will be used to assess stable vs.

decline vs. increase in the effective population (the annual

“reclassification”)? Will any of these be used in the declassification

process?

How will the USEWS determine a “real” trend in population size that

is part of recovery vs. a flux in population size from short-term

(decadal) fluctuations in cone crops and other variables? If the trend

6

72
closing road to Riggs as specified in Arizona-Idaho Act is

mentioned. Please add this and “no dogs” in Zones 1 and 2 to report.

42 Fencing around drive-in and high-use campsites adjacent to RS

should be considered. Or closing the campsite. Dogs need to be

prohibited in these areas. Nowhere addressed.

* Effective population is more important than total population for

recovery purposes. The use of “effective population” is crucial in all

press releases from USFS or other agencies as part of their

educational efforts. Use of total active middens gives the wrong

impression.

*There is no discussion of activity area and home range or territory

and its relationship to understanding densities. No mention that

activity area found by Froehlich, estimated by me and others (about

44 10 acres) is largest for species -- requiring special attention to

tree cutting even at relatively far distances from midden site. The

UA monitoring program does not monitor size, shape nor changes in

activity areas.

13

79
Who is in charge of determining changes in quality of habitat for

USFWS? What projects have been funded to address “measurable

criteria” and “trackable recovery tasks” for habitat quality change on

the mountains?

Density measurement type should always be defined. Very confusing

use of terms (e.g., p5¶3 uses crude density by cluster analysis;

p12¶1 is unclear; p20). Will density measurements be used in

31 Species Status Reports? Will they be used to determine population

flux vs. longer-term changes? Will they be used to trigger

emergency feeding? Will they be used to determine midden densities

by vegetative association and, indirectly, population size? Are crude

densities the best density measurement for all these purposes (see

‘Warshall, 1991)?

What criteria trigger each of the emergency measures: supplemental

feeding, captive breeding, relocation? Has USEWS considered

criteria based on cone crops? and consecutive years of cone crop

failures?

6.P&G guidelines (page 4) request a “cost of complete recovery.”

321 Where is this? Is this possible? Please address this explicitly.

7. Page 2 (P & G) states: “Coordination...is the most essential

ingredient.” The RP lacks any real discussion of coordination as it

relates to Section 4, Section 7, and Section 9 of the ESA. It pretends

all is going well. Yet, there are major conflicts between agencies,

especially on the Section 7 issue. Conflicts between agencies

have prevented implementation of recovery plans with

other endangered species (e.g., black-footed ferret). The RP

should not hide these conflicts or they will never be

resolved. In fact, an important funding project may be a

33 “conflict resolution” seminar.

Please state the position of USFWS, USFS, and AGFD on the following

potential sources of conflict:

a. Re-initiation of consultation under Section 7 on the basis of

“new information that reveals the astrophysical or other project

may affect the RS in a manner or extent not previously considered.”

8

74
!988, p115) that actual maximal occupation of ccus may be 55% to

~ 85%. Therefore, the theoretical upper limit could be as low as 358 or

553. The “650” is unjustifiable without further explanation.

Similarly, the old “502” maximal was stated to be between 276 and

426.

3rd sentence should read: “As of October 1991, 549 active, inactive

and abandoned sites have been inventoried. The number of abandoned

48 sites is unknown and inflates the total by an unknown number.”

Similar care should be taken on p8111.

211 -- First sentence should state “by HOM model.” The confidence

that USFWS has in model of “natural succession with no catastrophic

events” is crucial to its “recovery goal” of 900 as the theoretical

upper limit of carrying capacity units (NOT squirrels). Again, this

1 200-year population projection is more likely between 550 and 850

(assuming 1,000 ccus) given the crude model inputs and lack of

knowledge about “natural succession.”

p8¶3 -- I have not read Hatt study in a while but I do not remember

him following middens for “succeeding generations.” How long a

study was this in order to justify such a strong statement about

midden occupancy?

49 Pattern of midden distribution is also an social phenomena with

mothers subdividing or even leaving midden sites to young. Sociodemography should be added to 4th sentence.

p9 -- Last sentence is crucial in all your population estimates. It

should be moved to text and, if possible, a discussion of its impact

1 on pop assessment made.

p10 -- The discussion of canopy closure is confusing. RS in more

northem latitudes do not need as much or any canopy closure. I have

seen RS in Fairbanks with no canopy closure and in Idaho with

50 minimal closure. Should state that closed canopy (85%+) needed only

in southern part of range.

pll¶1 -- same as above. Fairbanks and Idaho are in western range.

I pll¶2 -- Denise’s study was in Doug Fir. This should always be 51 mentioned. Spruce-Fir is unknown.

15

81
Please include options such as “elimination of the Columbus Project”

in Zone 1; elimination of any further habitat destruction in Zone 1

and 2 (e.g., additional telescopes); a District Interagency

requirement that any tree cutting (including single trees) in zones 1

and 2 receive prior approval of all agencies involved; the narrowing

of the road to Heliograph Peak by reforestation; the elimination of

any further development of Heliograph and re-arrangement of

structures to increase reforestation potential; the reforestation of

Columbine; the inter-agency review of any indirect activity that

could hurt recovery rates (e.g., snow plowing and seedling burial;

culvert installation with possible downstream erosion or

interference with midden placement); the management of ciena s

for wetlands vs. forest; the fencing of RS habitat at Riggs Lake ~rom

access to dogs and humans, etc. As noted, the “RP must identify

site-specific management actions.” For each action, the responsible

parties and time-frames should be stated.

~ I~. The discussion of Priority Ratings can be found in Part 3. They do jnot follow P & G definitions.

10. While the RP does not require a NEPA document, certain actions

recommended by the RP may require a NEPA document. Which ones?

How will the recovery team decide? How will the public know before

36 the project begins? Will the visitor center at Columbine require a

supplemental EIS?

10

76
• protocols should be of highest priority to recovery program

since the UA program is such a drain on finances but will

1 be the basis for the greatest amount of habitat destruction

in Zone 1.

571114 -- Should “estimated” be “indexed?”

11 pl9 -- Pop size has not used “random stratified sampling” twelve times as indicated by second sentence. Please correct.

Many more assumptions which heavily influence results are not

mentioned. For instance: (1) The total N in estimates includes some

middens that have been abandoned. This exaggerates pop estimate.

(2) The proportion of middens within each vegetation association is

held constant between years. This has not been verified. (3) The

46 density of middens within mapped vegetation associations is considered homogeneous. This has not been verified. In addition, no

study of inter-observer error in assessing “active” vs “inactive” is

known to me. As stated, one squirrel/one midden assumption may not

be valid for years of poor cone crop production.

— 58 I In Table, should footnote “1” also be used for Oct 91. If not, why not?

p20 -- For all pop estimates, indicate whether they are spring or

1! fall. A sentence should be added about why fall estimates

are not useful for recovery criteria.

112 -- Qualify all Paul Young’s work with “with spruce-fir or

59 transition zone”. Do not generalize to whole mountain.

p22 -- Discussion of Abert’s needs to focus on recovery strategy.

How big is transition zone where RS and Abert’s overlap Doug fir

cone harvests? If I remember the overlap zone would allow a

maximum number of 40 RS to replace Abert’s (assuming that there is

competitive exclusion in these areas and RS home ranges average

about 10 acres). At the moment, it is doubtful that there is

competitive exclusion. It is more likely that adult RS cannot live in

60 “overlap” areas because of adverse microclimate. It was concluded in

USDA (1988) that separation of Abert’s and RS is a matter of size,

microclimate tolerance, physiology (use of ponderosa sap), nesting

sites, etc. In other words, competitive exclusion was not a

reasonable hypothesis, only select resource partitioning

(mushrooms, Doug fir and white fir cones). A small study in one

17

83
words, risk management includes a chart of driving forces,

uncontrollable forces, tasks required for prevention of habitat loss,

damage control, mitigation j5ossibilities, and unresolved issues that

either increase or decrease risk. For instance, which type of habitat

losses are uncontrollable? which can be prevented and how? which

can be mitigated and how? and which can only be subject of damage

control? This framework will create a much more coherent strategy

than the present report. Probably a risk management expert could

help organize the recovery program in a more direct manner.

41 *A major gap in Recovery Plan is estimation of decadal

losses of habitat that will subvert any regeneration gains.

There is no focus on “piecemeal” losses from windthrow, ice storms,

localized tree diseases, indirect destruction from roadwork and

culvert repair, lightning strikes, and bear-caused tree mortality. For

instance, I estimated a piecemeal loss from lightning of 20 to 30

acres in a thirteen year period. Others have estimated as much as a

20% loss of subalpine fir from bear girdling with some competitive

release to surrounding trees. No research is proposed on area,

magnitude of destruction, frequency, and predictability of

these setbacks to regeneration. Turnover rate of various

vegetative associations need better definition.

1~ 1~tural losses and human induced losses of habitat, windthrow

storm losses are never mentioned. Why?

*Why do research on Abert’s, if nothing can be done? Strategies that

are not mentioned include: local extirpation of Abert’s on West Peak

41 and re-introduction of RS; experimental hunting in habitat that

appears to be useable by RS; general reduction of numbers. If

research is to be done, then these strategies (not “pure science”) is

goal. Should p34 read differently? Why does competition need to be

determined for risk management?

* Dogs are not mentioned in text. Many dog breeds tree squirrels,

reduce RS food and travel time and cause stress. Zones 1 and 2

should have no dogs on trails. The “on leash” law is

unenforceable. Having walked many USFS trails with leash laws

42 (e.g., south Fork of Cave Creek in the Chiricahuas), I have rarely seen

a dog on a leash and have watched them tree the Chiricahua squirrel

numerous times. The situation also occurs adjacent to heavy use

areas (e.g.. Riggs Lake) where squirrel numbers may be limited by

dogs. No mention of fencing parking lot at Riggs Lake or

12

78
USFS? Can you insert: Conflicts between agencies are a major

63 constraint on stabilization and recovery process. If not, why

not? -

What does “immediate extinction” mean? Please give years included

in “immediate.”

1 Crown fires are not the only concem. Floor fires that reduce the

number of logs or snags are equally important. Please change.

64 IDoes immediate extinction include “dog control?” Not mentioned.

p26112 -- The “is promising” cannot be said at the moment. You have

65 not calculated decadal losses (see below) from natural phenomena. Decadal losses may now exceed regeneration rates. This should be

stated as an unknown.

1 IPlease include your understanding of successional stages. For

linstance (early = 160 years; mid = 160 to 240 years).

There is a need to know what is the youngest patch or

66 grove of trees or basal area (by type) that can support a RS. This task is not listed within your document. Only this

threshold will provide accurate habitat recovery data.

p27 There already are all kinds of monitoring. Please summarize

these in a Table and indicate which are “pure science” and which

have relevance to stabilization and recovery and why. No

monitoring of impacts of road building on adjacent trees

67 has been proposed (see USFWS, 1990, page 14) and no

monitoring of insect infestations and heart rot (page 11).

RP requires chart of which projects are funded and

importance to recovery. Please insert.

p28 -- Is 95% probability for 100 years, the standard adopted by

68 USFWS? If not, what standard is being used?

Does USFWS have a goal for a well-distributed population?

69 Is it mapped? If not, what is its goal? Is there a special task to

define such a map? At what scale?

19

85
PART 3: SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE RECOVERY PLAN

EXEC SUMMARY: This needs to be re-written from comments

enclosed. In particular, criteria for declassification (endangered to

threatened) and reclassification (increasing decreasing, stabilized)

30 and measurements triggering crisis strategie... need to be added. In

addition, the difference between simulated populations and actual

field reconnaissance should be made absolutely clear.

p3¶2 -- I believe third sentence should say “and more different than

Douglas squirrel is from Baja squirrel.” As written it implies that

Douglas squirrel is not a valid species vs. red squirrel.

p3112 -- This speculation should probably be cut. Alternate theory

might state that the Mt. Graham RS is the source population for the

i White Mountains.

p4¶1 -- Fourth sentence should read “as far east as Turkey Flat and

as far west as West Peak.”

p4111 -- West Peak area has only been inventoried twice since 1970s.

~ My search was half a day. It is possible one or two RS remain.

p5111 -- This paragraph is controversial. It is not widely accepted

that one squirrel per midden should be the basis for RS management

and Vahle (1978) does not state this. How “exceptional” the use of

more than one midden (as defined by various biologists) is used by

one RS has never been sampled on a year-to-year basis with large

46 numbers. Wells, not cited here, found midden sharing and division of

the home range in some of her RS work. In addition, use of more than

one midden by a single squirrel may be more common when food is

rare (contrary to your sentence).

p7 -- The Squirrel Habitat Equivalent Density Assessment (SHEDA)

and the Habitat Capability Model (HCM) are very different estimate

techniques. HCM is a crude -- utilizing only two variables --

structural stage and vegetation type, while SHEDA has six additional

~ variables. HOM is dependent on values assigned for cover and food by

experts at an early stage on our understanding. It requires expert

opinion of an “optimal density” which has not been re-evaluated from

filed data since 1988. HOM determines “theoretical upper limit” of

carrying capacity units (not RS numbers). Literature shows (USDA,

14

80
Achilles heel of the UA monitoring program and appears to be

continued in the Recovery Plan.

1 By “high quality” habitat, do you mean Zone 1 or Zone 2 levels? If

not, what is high quality mean?

p34113 -- What are your references for this? Is there simply a lack

13 of evidence or strong negative evidence?

p35 -- What is your evidence that spruce-fir is less susceptible to

catastrophic fire? Catastrophes may be less frequent, but are they

of smaller magnitude? Fuel buildup is very high on the forest floor

and a series of drought years may increase risk? Has there been a

tree ring study or something else?

If 10,00 acres have been lost in 4 decades, then an average loss of

2,500 acres per decade or 25,000 acres per century is a possible

risk. This appears greater (by a factor of ten?) to regeneration rates.

This is truly a gloomy scenario requiring fire prevention and damage

1 control as the highest priority.

111 states that 15,000 acres may be lost in the next century. But, the

arithmetic says 25,000. Is this a typo? If not, explain?

112 -- The response to uncontrollable drought can only be

74 food supplements. This risk scenario requires a high

priority but is given only a mid priority in your table. Why?

p36111 -- The third sentence appears unjustified. It relies on the

HOM model which includes no catastrophes and a 20% (if the model is

75 the same as 1988) setback from decadal losses. Anything •may be

possible.” A rational assessment gives the probability that it may be

possible.

112 -- add “arson or accidental fires” after “wildfires.” Remember

the use of diesel generators within Zone 1 increases risk.

Increased astro-tourism increases risk. These have NOT

been mentioned.

1 113 and 4 -- “estimated maximum carrying capacity” should be

changed to the “upper limit of the HCM’s model theoretical carrying

capacity.” USDA (1988) appendices discuss other limitations to HOM.

21

87
p13113 -- Not mentioned are gentler slopes, cod air drainages. Not

mentioned are any understory plants, especially blackberries and

52 vaccinum. Especially in the Plain View Peak area, these may be

important. I have seen RS harvesting blackberries. Why are

understory plants not part of recovery strategy?

~p14 -- Foods. Qualify remarks on food use by subspecies and

1 I location of RS populations throughout this section. Remarks may not

apply to Mt Graham RS. Holvorson study is better than Gurnell for

~ J assessing time lags and importance of closed cone seed crops.

1 iword is “epigeous” not “epigenous.”

No discussion of calcium/phosphorus limitation and

54 possibility of providing bones to middens as strategy to

improve diet.

1 1p16111 -- Mushrooms make up 10-40% of diet as measured by what?

11 p17113 -- I believe Hoffmeister only looked a one female. “Embryos”

implies larger sample.

p18111 -- Combined data indicate a smaller average litter size than

51 species as a whole and a constraint on speed of recovery. Mention

I this?

p18113 -- The language needs to be more precise. semi-annual

1 midden population estimate” should be replaced. What is the

difference between midden inventory and population estimate? If

you look at recent data, there is a proposed zero mortality (no

winterkill) for 1991-1992. Frankly, this is unbelievable and runs

contrary to much more precise (actual population) studies. There is

something highly inaccurate about midden census conversions

56 between fall and spring estimates. If midden census is to be centerpiece of recovery population and mortality

estimates, than understanding midden census accuracy is

highest priority research need.

Similarly, the UA monitoring program as of 1991 is not useful in

most aspects of the study of population ecology (Warshall, 1991).

The “will help” should minimally be changed to “might help” or RP

1 needs a chart showing which aspects of UA monitoring program will

actually help understand recovery. A revision of monitoring

16

82
p44 -- The words “successful” have no evidence whatsoever. This is

a controversy with agency pitted against agency. The AGFD disagrees

with the USFS and UA on monitoring and Alternative 3 but has no

enforcement power. The USFWS has requested a section 7

81 reconsultation and opposed by the USFS. The GAO has tangled with

the Justice Department. Inter-agency cooperation on Zones I

and 2 is the major obstacle to a recovery plan as the USFS

will not commit to preventing the third and four more

telescopes -- contrary to recommendations in this report.

They do not, as far as I know, report tree cutting to a “District

Inter-agency Team” and, as far as I know, held no meeting on recent

cutting outside the astrophysical fence line, cutting trees along

Swift Trail or work on culverts that might impact trees

downstream. They have not followed the strict letter of AICA as far

as road closures. They will not support Congressional bills to allow

NEPA and the ESA to follow due process. Their plans for

recreational development may be the biggest indirect

threat to habitat loss in the short-term. It appears that the

ability to implement remains the major obstacle and

conflict resolution between agencies remains the most

important cause. Ignoring this in the recovery plan will simply

increase the chances of extinction. This occurred with the blackfooted ferret as well as many other inter-agency activities with

endangered species.

82 p44 -- In 211 what does “productivity” mean in terms of any I measurement? Litter size? Densities?

p45 -- In 22, what are “critically low numbers?” Please give a

83 number, not a definition.

In 223, list types of emergencies of concern. Tree disease, insect

84 j outbreaks, fires, consecutive years of drought?

p55 -- Qualify second sentence: “..densities of RS middens in good to lj excellent cone crop years...”

p55 -- See comments about unenforceable rules. Zones 1 and 2

42 should have no dogs.

23

89
overlap zone (e.g., Grant Hill) indicated to me that most Abert’s

habitu was poor RS microclimate. RS remained in “Abert’s habitat”

in any grove of trees that provided a suitable microclimate.

Abert’s may limit speed of recruitment of young by preventing

winter-time use of Ponderosa for dispersed fledglings. That is, pop

may fluctuate in greater amplitude because of inability of RS young

to overwinter in ponderosa. This speculation would imply that a

major reduction in overwintering habitat occurred after the 1940s.

60 This may only be of historical interest because extirpation of

Abert’s does not seem to be a reasonable task (only in China!). On the

other hand, heavy hunting of Abert’s may allow a small incremental

increase in overwintering population.

p23¶2 -- Third sentence does not make sense. “Viable” and

6 “stabilize” need to be defined in measurable ways. See general

comments.

p24111 -- The question is not what the UA monitoring

program says its doing but whether it will have any

meaningful results for understanding the planned

destruction of Zone 1 forest. The AGFD has issued a protest

61 against this monitoring program as in violation of the requirements

of the management plan and AlGA. A major issue is adequate

monitoring before further habitat destruction occurs. The present

course appears to be: Let’s waste the money fighting it out in court.

1 I 112-- State years that research funding will be available. Are you I sure funding is available through 2002?

p25¶5 -- How does defining “essential habitat” help

recovery? Is there any regulation that accompanies “essential

habitat?” Can USFWS enforce this regulation? How does USEWS get

agreement with USFS to determine essential habitat and put teeth

62 into any r9gulations concerning essential habitat? This is crucial to

reducing ~.dbitatloss, the most salient factor cited by USFWS.

Has USFS agreed to Habitat Management Zones? How does USFWS go

about gaining agreement? What is enforcement mechanism? Will 63 adoption of HMZ require a new EIS or addendum to the existing EIS?

Who has authority to close roads or areas? USFS has not closed

roads requested in AICA? Does USFWS have any power to influence

18

84
AL DORAZIO 4

/ /-/J4V,~ f 4t)=2~ 7&4’c’c’,vr

C~12(~97s~ i=Q~9L10&c/~L- ~r,~bV~f 7~JJ4V’

/ /!i6A~O%1 /‘4~ ~ ~

14 Fo~ ~Th-3”-’~-~i-~d-, ‘6 A)L-~j,/i--T t1~ ~e$tJ~

OTh~K- ~/. t71 A’ /CU(OAJ A4~t

2

SEP 8

F—.--,—

FROM THE DESK OF

91
p29 -- The Marcot statements are descriptive. They are not

“probabilities of persistence.” Please give probabilities of

70 persistence for 100 years at 95% Cl or some other standard or

rewrite sentence.

This descriptive scenarios should include sentences such as

Decadal “natural piecemeal losses are (much greater,

somewhat greater, equal, less, significantly less) than

regeneration rates of mature and old growth habitat.

Natural and human-caused catastrophic losses are (much

71 greater, somewhat greater, equal, less, significantly less) than

regeneration rates of mature and old growth habitat. Will

any of the scenarios include any habitat losses in Zone 1 and 2? Any

in other zones? Are piecemeal losses from arson and

accidental fires considered significant (how many acres) in

any of the scenarios?

p30¶3 -- “could be” has no place in a recovery plan. What is

confidence that acreage increase might occur? What are driving

forces that will let you reach or not reach this goal? My confidence

72 is low because the RP lacks explanation of the successional time

frames and decadal “setbacks” from piecemeal destruction. See

general comments about confidence in data within recovery plan.

p31¶1 -- The HCM estimate should be lowered to 85% level. If not,

why not? The population has not recently approached this level is

not the fault of the squirrels. It may be the inadequacy of the model!

~ ¶2 -- as above, cite HCM model and use 85% estimate as optimum.

Again, why are you using adult population in spring index and not

effective population?

p32114 -- This sentence appears totally unjustified. No one has

measured survival rates! What justifies this sentence? References?

Please send data?

The question is: What level of flux triggers what risk

1management task? This is not addressed.

p33¶1 -- “a lower average population” has not been discussed? What

average?” Harmonic mean, running average, median, arithmetic

mean. A major unaddressed issue in the Recovery Plan is

what are the best blo-stat measurements to use. This is the

20

86
and ‘40’s. You remark in your araft that you do not have enough

information in your file to be able to make any definite deCisions.

87 In other words you have not been able to tell if the Squirrel is in

danger of extinction or not. We all know that this squirrel was

picked out as an endangered species by those dead set against the

Telescope project to use as a weapon against the Telescope. The

squirrel was picked out because they had to have something that

they thought no one knew anything about so that they would be more

likely to make the charge stick. This was based on your estimates

on their population. Accepting your present count as accurate,

there has never at anytime in my 62 years of observation, been over

400 squirrels on the mountain. You are correct when you say they

fluctuate and this because of the weather and the cone crop which

is beyond anyone’s control. You are wrong however in stating the

kind of habitat they like the best. Back in the 1932 to 1945 time

area the forest was open and had clear meadows. Many of the trees

were standing and alive. Forest fires had kept them clean. The

squirrel population was as good or better than it is now. At the

present time we have few meadows and they are closed up with

unburned trash and with a 15 to 20% of dead standing trees. In

88 many places there are dead and down trees two and three or more

logs deep and small trees so thick that few of them can grow to

maturity. Most of these are useless cork bark trees. The

squirrels have spread out to a greater area to find food. It is

interesting to note that a good share of this immigration has been

into the area of the big 1956 fire.

For the present let us say that all of your draft summary

objectives are right;

1. We do need to protect and monitor existing population and

habitat. The forest needs to be cleaned up to prevent a

catastrophic fire that could happen at any time and wipe out the

entire squirrel population. contrary to some beliefs squirrels

like people and are disposed to being friends. It might be helpful

in lean years for them to be given some artificial food caches to

supplement the natural food. If you are so strong on

reforestation, why not clear out a good share of the trash or nonproductive vegetation so the cone bearing trees can grow.

2. Determine the life history and habitat ecology. This

should have been done BEFORE the squirrel was put on the endangered

89 list. Check with the few who are still left who know about these

things, those who have been in a position to have observed the

squirrel over the years. Check the available histories and

articles that tell what the habitat has been in the past.

3. Reclaim previously occupied habitat. I think you will

find that most of your squirrels will be found in the area that was

logged during the time period from 1900 to 1926. In this area you

will find that the forest is not as bad as the areas in the rest of

the forest. The logging that was done during the 1960’s has not

had a chance to grow back yet and reforestation might be helpful

however the roads built into these areas at that time should be

left open and cleared on both sides. They make excellent fire

breaks to limit burn area if a bad fire in a dry weather time

should get started before things can be cleaned up. There are a

93
I think a good case could be made for “lOw to very low”. RP

optimism comes from not considering increased fire risks

1 from diesel and tourism, decadal piecemeal losses and

optimistic assumptions about reforestation.

Ip37 -- Why isn’t 123 given a priority? Why does 1111 have a high

76 I priority, if no regulations related to recovery can be attached to this

task? What are the tasks in 121?

p38 -- Why is no priority given to 1253? Has repopulating West Peak

been considered? Why is 126 a mid priority when it is crucial to

77 understanding p ‘Dulation flux dynamics and setting emergency

74 measures? Nowhere in the report is determination of seed

set (cone fertility) mentioned. This is definitely a high

priority in terms of food supply.

Why is 15 not given a priority? This is top priority (see p44).

Why is 213 a mid priority? Determining when a midden is abandoned

~ is crucial to improving the midden index.

Why is 223 a mid priority? Emergency plans for drought and tree

disease control and possible squirrel epidemics should be a major

goal to prevent habitat loss.

p39 -- I don’t understand “essential habitat.” Does it include any

62 enforcement? Why not revise Section 4 (ESA) and .change critical

78 habitat with new info available. The old critical habitat boundaries

were out of date at time of designation and did not include update I

(and others) sent to USFWS. The issues were not addressed in

Federal Register.

Which of these tasks requires “reconsultation” and which can be done 36 I without reconsultation? Why?

As st...ted, dogs and fences at Riggs Lake should be added to “physical

42 protection.”

p41 -- see comments on measurement and scaling for 123 and 1231.

~ GIS should not be singled out without more justification. Why not

low altitude aerial photos?

80 p42 -- Does “semi-annual” mean “bi-annual?”

22

88
Jonathan I. Lunine

7234 East Beverly Drive

Tucson AZ 85710

602-298—7249

September 7, 1992

wUfESER~

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 2

Albuquerque, NM

Re: Draft Recovery Plan for Mount Graham Red Squirrel

I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the Draft

Recovery Plan for the Mount Graham Red Squirrel. The authors are

to be commended for a very clearly developed summary of the

recent history of the mountain, with particular reference to the

combination of natural and human effects which have conspired

over the past several decades to restrict severely the habitat of

the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel.

I was most encouraged by the discussion of the various Habitat

Management Zones, in which non-motorized recreational uses (dayuse hiking and walk-in camping) are recommended as compatible in

essentially all the zones, including those now comprising the

refugium which is off limits to the public.

I very strongly urge your agency and the Forest Service to take

those steps necessary to reopen the refugiurn to the public as

soon as possible. Most straightforward would be to initially

allow hiking into the refugium, with a high profile monitoring of

the area through use of backcountry Forest Service personnel -

(and/or uniformed volunteers). These individuals could educate

the hiking public regarding the special ecological values of the

area, as well as on proper hiking techniques for the area.

If desired, monitoring of the number of hikers per day could be

achieved through installation •of self—serve permit stands at the

trailheads (or at the trail intersections with the refuge

boundary). Hikers would be responsible for filling out the

permits and carrying a copy with them on the trail. Use of the

stations would be encouraged through spot-checking of permits on

trail by backeountry personnel. This system has been employed in

heavily—used national forests of California and provides a

minimum of inconvenience for the hiker while allowing usage

numbers to be tracked.

Opening of the refuge to hiking is absolutely essential to

educating the public regarding the unique environ~ental values of

the high reaches of the Pinalenos mountains. Currently, closure

of the area is misunderstood by much of the public. Many

individuals think that the Refugium ia the Astrophysical

Observatory, are confused about acreage involved in each and how

95
p58 -- The cienagas may have invasions of spruce. There is an

important management question: manage for cienaga or spruce? This

85 is not addressed.

Zone 7 is very controversial and not at all clear in plan. For instance,

should Columbine be reforested? Should road to Heliograph be

86 narrowed with reforestation? Should top of Helio be reforested and how much? Should Riggs Lake have fencing or no cars and dogs? What

gets included in Zone 7 must be accepted by USFS. What is process of

acceptance in the USFS Land management Plans?

Bibliography

USFS. 1988. Mt. Graham Red Squirrel: An Expanded Biological

Assessment. 130 pg.

USEWS. May 1990. “Policy and Guidelines for Planning and

Coordinating Recovery of Endangered and Threatened Species.” 14 pg

plus four appendixes.

USFWS. August 1990. “Report of the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel

Biological Update Team”” 18 p. Refer to: FWS/DHC/BFA.

Warshall, P. 1991. “Memorandum on the Mt. Graham International

Observatory Monitoring Program.” Prepared for the Arizona Game and

Fish Department, Non-Game Branch. 25 pg.

24

90
United States Forest Southwestern 517 Gold Avenue SW.

Department of Service Region Albuquerque, NM 87102-0084

Agriculture FAX: (505) 842-3800

Reply To: 2670

Date: SEP 1 4 1992

Mr. Sam Spiller SEP j? 1992

Ecological Services

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

3616 W. Thomas Road, Suite 6 ‘,; n:.i & Y7L~!2FE ~

Phoenix, AZ 850l~

Dear Mr. Spiller:

This letter provides our comments to the draft Mt. Graham red squirrel (MGRS)

recovery plan. Technical and editorial comments are enclosed in a separate

document. We are willing to assist the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

in revision and finalizing this document.

Overall, the document provides a reasonable strategy for conservation and

stabilization of the species. Unfortunately, it does little to resolve the

difficult task the Forest Service has to face in order to manage for the species

in the context of multiple-use land management. As you are aware, the Forest

Service has been committed to recovery and has accomplished many actions toward

that goal in recent years. These actions have included reforestation,

population monitoring and many changes in various land management practices.

The issues surrounding this species, the mountain and astrophysical development

have been extremely polarized in recent years and as a result have made

practical management of the mountain and its uses extremely difficult. This

recovery plan more clearly defines the long-term needs for providing significant

protection for the species and displays the information in a manner that will

improve our framework for planning and consultation. It brings the stark

realities of managing for endangered species into the light of day, especially

when those species are ones with extremely limited distribution and small

population size.

We believe that the document needs to be expanded under the section called

“Strategy for Increase and Stabilization” to include a more lengthy discussion

on forest dynamics and the extremely complex job of providing for mature forests

over time. We suggest that the following be included:

Essential to recovery of the species is to provide a strategy for the

long-term recovery of degraded and currently unsuitable forests and to

provide a scheme that will provide for mature forests and so suitable

habitat over time. However, when devising such a strategy, the natural ebb

Iand flow of forest seral stages must be taken into consideration. It is not

realistic to assume that regeneration of degraded habitats will be a

straight line process; natural factors such as fire, insects, small mammals

caring for the Land and Serving People

97 FS.62OO.2Sb~4/88)
ESFIEWOm .PHOEt4IXAZ August 11, 1992

United States Department of the Interior

Fish & Wildlife Service

Ecological Services

3616 W. Thomas Suit 6

Phoenix, Arizona 85019

Gentlemen:

I have been authorized to make comments on your Draft for the

recovery plan for the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel for the Safford

Rotary Club. These are a group of 30 influential business and

professional men, cevaraj. of whom have summer home permits on Mt.

Graham and the rest are interested in keeping and caring for our

main source of recreation in Graham County and the surrounding

areas.

My qualifications to write this response are as follows: My

Grandfather Hyrum Weech along with Mr. John M. Moody, Sr., and

Ebenemer Bryce, Sr. (he is the Bryce who first found and settled in

the Bryce National Canyon area of Utah) were the first men to

explore the mountain ten years after Lt. Wheeler of the Army of the

West surveyed it in 1872. They, on horseback, went up what is now

Nuttall Canyon and rode all the way to tne top of High Peak finding

the rock monument left by Lt. Wheeler. His description of the

mountain left no doubt that it was wide open spaces and ope~

meadows with little dead and down timber and trash vegetation.

very descriptive record of this journey was published in his life

story as written by him in a book entitled “Our Pioneer Parents.

His son and my father, David H. Weech was the managing partner

of the Ash Creek Lumber Company that they established around the

turn of the century. It was he who built the flume to carry the

lumber from the mill in Ash Creek.

The Weech family has had summer homes in the Columbine area

since 1890. Grandma Weech gave it it’s name. I have had a summer

home permit since 1946. My father and I built the log cabin that

w~ hi~ ~umni~ home in the Columbine Flat in 1937 and has been

occupied by Weech families since that time. I spent every summer

from 1928 through 1940 with my family at this cabin site. We moved

up and spent the entire summer from June to September there. I

covered the entire mountain from Taylor pass on the west to Shannan

and Hospital Flat on the east by foot on my daily hikes in the

entire area th~t is supposed to be the home of the Red Squirrel.

I hunted them auring the depression years with a bean shooter. I

have trapped them and made pets out of them. I have spent hours

observing them while hiking in all parts of the forest. I have had

the privilege of hearing the many stories of my father and

grandfather of their experiences on the mountain. My father kept

a journal from before the turn of the century until just months

before his death in 1958. I have this record.

As for comments on your Draft for the Recovery of the Re”~

Squirrel, lets start from the beginning. From my above backgrounc

I can say without hesitation that there never has been any dangeL

87 of the Red squirrel becoming extinct. They are just as many

squirrels on the mountain now as there were back in the 1930’ and

92
Mr. Sam Spiller 3

~n some canes these mites are having difficulty returning to stocked forest

conditions because of the site dominance a.nd competition of the herbacecus

m&teti&l (grasses primarily) . These early successiona.1 sites are where

assistance would most likely facilitate and speed up the succession process

in order to provide earlier recovery of r.he area to mature foreit with

relatively closed canopies. We are acquiring a better understanding of

habitat requirements for midden sites So that land managers can attempt to

provide for red squ~.rrel needs. The ~n:ent in no reforest formerly forested

areas and it is not dasira.ble to attempt to reforest siteS that are natural

openings (cienagas, wet meadows, etc.).

Some concern has been expressed that reforestation will occur to the extent

that early seral stages will be severely lacking which will impact early

seral stage wildlife species. Forest; are dynamic entities where continuing

disturbances can be expected, and it is also unlikely that reforestation

efforts would be so successful that early moral stage. and openings will be

lost in the landscape to the extent that other wildlife populations would be

greatly affected or eliminated. In fact, in order to provide mature forests

in Perpetuity, it will be necessary to provide for all seral stage. over

time. It’s likely than these stages will be provided naturally in small

patches naturally through the landscape over time, rather than in larger

harvest units or blocks.

Management etrategies for insuring older forests in perpetuity in the mixed

conifer and transition vegetation types will be much more complex than in

the mpruce-f±rtype. The complexity is a result of more tree species being

1.

Lz2vOlvOd, a wore significant role of fire in the ecology of theme forests,

the past history of logging, the greater potential for catastrophic

wildf~res, fuels management needs, and the greater interface with human

development. Because of the associated complexity, management strategies

will need to be developed on a site-specific level (individual forest stand.

and conditions) . This will require integration of forest silviculture, tire

management, and squirrel biology. Firer priority should be given to

assisting sites that are in early successional stages. Second priority

need; to be given to 8ites in mid-successional stage. (seedling-sapling and

poles) . Third priority needs to be given to mature and old forest sites

that are currently suitable. These mature and old forest site. will change

over time in both structure and tree composition, and it is these ;±temthat

will eventually need to be reviewed, monitored, end in some cases actively

managed and manipulated in order to maintain the desired forest

characteristics long-term. Management of these sites would normally not

require logging or mature tree removal. Management would tend to include

practices such am low-intensity prescribed firee (maintaining snag and

downed log characteristics), thinning from below of younger tree classes ~n

order to promote a developing overstory, perhaps occasional interplant~n;,

etc. The goal should be to maintain the existing older forest character

while provid.ing for recruitment of future overstory. In many cases little

or no active management vill be needed in the near future.

99
lot of over-aged Ponderosa pine and Douglas fir that needs to be

logged out and open spaces made for growing of new cohe bearing

trees.

4. Integrate species and habitat protection actions for the

Pinaleno Mountains This is fine if a program can be set up that

will improve the area. If you are going to spend 1.8 million

dollars of the tax payers money at least put it where some good

might come of it. Since the Red Squirrel was never been endangered

and since it has failed in its original purpose, which was to stop

the telescopes, lets drop it as a condition for normal life on Mt.

89 Graham. Open up our recreational roads and let the people of the

area help with cleaning up the forest by using the dead and down

wood. This would help in making it possible for the squirrels to

exist better and also make it better for the deer and other animals

that need open, grassy meadow who are the really more endangered

than the squirrels. Many of the clearings proposed for

reforestation were intentionally created as wildlife openings in

the 1960’s and 1970’s to provide ecological diversity. Deer and

other such wildlife have needs also. Reforestation of many of

these sites will be nearly impossible because the sites are

southern and western facing slopes and by nature are hot and dry.

Note: Check your forest in Europe, England, Scotland and

Ireland that have existed for thousands of years with people in and

around them. They have learned how to take care of them. They

know how to used their natural resources and still leave what is

needed by mother nature to meet all it’s requirements. Maybe we

could learn something from them.

Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion on this

matter.

Sincerely,

I f

(iO6e~4{1’~eA4L.

Allen B. We i~h, Sec.

As a member of this Rotary Cltib I wish to a~4-~~y name to the

above remarks.
Mr. Sam Spiller 5

Th. concept of allowing some levels of recreational ule of the refugium is

alluded to through the Habitat Management Zone appendix but is not directly

1 addressed. Given the level of public interest on this specific aspect, it

merits direct discussion.

On page 39, item 1112 alludes to further closure. and other use restrictions.

Given the number of actions that have already been taken, we believe it merit.

90 recognition of these actions and that further closures are unlikely and would

only be used when a clearly demonstrated need occurs.

The etab~lisation goal of increasing the habitat to exceed 300 adult uquirrels

even during populat±onlows is not completely clear. Over what period of time

91 will be used as the measure of when this goal ha. been achieved? How long is

it estimated to take, 5 years or 50 years? What will happen when that goal i~

achieved? That is the precision that must be obtained in measuring the

population; after all, the current numbers are only estimates?

Given the polarization of issues surrounding Mt. Graham and the red squirrel, it

La extremely important that red squirrel management is based on biology of the

species alone. This is especLally important given the importance of the

10 mountain to a variety of uses and the fact that scarce resources (both natural

and financial) must be wisely used.

cc:

Coronado NP

Safford ~fl

Enclosure

101
the refuge differs ecologically from other parts of the mountain.

Few would recognize its distinction as the highest conifer forest

in Southeastern Arizona, containing rich stands of Engelmann

Spruce and other species which are rare or nonexistent in the

other sky island ranges. Permitting the public to experience the

area through hiking, while providing appropriate information

(through brochures or personal contact on trails) calling out its

special values, would do more than any other activity to allay

misunderstanding and build public trust in the ongcAng

restoration activities.

As a side benefit, reopening of the refugium would reintegrate a

good trail system which was badly fragmented by the 1988 closure.

In summary, I believe it is time to allow limited public

activities again on the highest reaches of the Pinalenos. Hiking

10 and wildlife observation, properly augmented by educationoriented contact with land stewards on the trails, would become a

powerful method for deepening our understanding of this unique

and precious mountain ecosystem. I urge you to implement a

reopening of the refugium.

Sincerely yours,

Jonathan I. Lunine

cc: USES, Coronado, Tucson, AZ

96
24 The reference to research funding for the “r.ext” 10 year. could cause

confus±onsince we axe already several years into the 10-year funding.

25 Th~ term “cr±sis”might be conaidared ±nflammatv~jby some. Zn th±s

first paragraph i.t may warrant making further reference again to the

naturally limited distrLbut~on of the squirrel.

The term “natural habitat losses~ is unclear.

1 26 The section on ‘Three forest site assistance prioritLes. . .u is

confusing. Needs extens±verevision. Please ut±lizethe discussion

supplied earlier in the body of Our comment letter.

25 The use of an “essential habitat” designation is uncertain. Although

the current Porest Service manual contains reference to this pol±cy, it

does not appear to be a designation and procedure that is regularly

used. ~urtharinvestigation on use of thin designation is needed. The

overlap and/or inconsistency with cr±ticalhabitat boundarLes would

need to be addressed.

Suggest revising “±z~lementingmanagement plans to affect increasing

and stabilizing the red squ±rrelpopulation” to read “implement

management plena to increase and sta.bLlise the red squLrrel

population.”

27 PVA’s may not be the beat “tool” for understanding management per se.

10 Rather, the PVA’s will need refinerr.ent over time to better evaluate the

viability of the species as both an improved knowledge of the SPCCiS5

develops and as management improves the habitat capability.

The reference to mitigation i~ the second paragraph is unclear. If all

suitable habLtat La protected and if nearly all potentLally suitable

1habitat is managed for the species, then what other mitigation is

possible?

36 Delete the word “sustained” from the fLint sentence of the last

paragraph.

The statement “Per the squirrel to survive, habitat 1033 must not occur

in these zones”, Lu overstated. Change to “Zones 1, 2, end 3 are

93 currently the most important habitat areas and habitat losses should be

prevented ±nthese areas.” The aLms cc~rnent goes for similar wording

of “unacceptable” found on page 56, second paragraph.

42 The long-term pcpu.a:Lon monitoring may be reduced to one tkme per

The term “re-population” is awkward and unclear.

43 References here and elsewhere to fire suppression and elsewhere should

be made clear that the concern is related to catastrophic, standdestroying type fires and that prescribed fires both inside and outside

1of red squirrel habitat may be needed to manage and protect red

squirrel habitat.

~ 1 4i Drop the word “reliable” Ln item 2.

Haven’t the studies of Smith and Mannan accomplished much, if not all,

95 1 of the current needs on midden characteristics?

103
Mr. Sam Spiller 2

(e.g., gophers), different soils, aspects, and slopes will all affect the

pace of regeneration and reforestation. Nut, the general outlook for the

species in the long-term could be promising if the forest habitat were

restored, maintained, and perpetuated. ReforestatLon of degraded habitats

will eventually provide a wider and more secure land base for the species,

and thus is a major priority for recovery.

:n order to provide for long-term survival of the !~RS, it is necessary to

provide habLtat (mid-aged, mature and older forests) in perpetuity. Forests

are dynam±c,not statLc enti:ie~. Trees, like all living organisms, are

mortal. Thus, it is important to consider the dynamics of the forest

associatLons on the Pina..~o Mounta~nm and determine strategies to insure

mature forests into the ..~-term (100-200 years and beyond).

The major forest associations of conoern are the spruce-fir, mixed conifer

and the transition between these twc types. Recent studies of the

spruce-fir forest of the P~naleno indicate that in the old-growth areas the

spruce and fir species are “wel1 represented in many s~.ze and age classes,

indicating continuing recruitment under a mature canopy by both species”

(Stromberg and Patton 1991)

Before the arrival of European settlers, forests throughout western North

America were burned by frequent low-intensity, lightning-caused ground

fires. These fires were particularly prevalent in ponderosa pins forests,

to a lesser extent in the mixed conifer forests and were infrequent and rar~

in the spruce-f±rforests. Accordingly, fire plays a corresponding role ~

the ecology of each of these forest types.

1

Wildfire suppression since the early 1900’s has greatly reduced fire

frequency and in many areas entirely eliminated f±re from these forests

(Weaver 1361, ~ieterich 1983, McCune 1953, Stein 1998, Keane et al 1990)

On Mt. Graha.’~i, wildfires (both man-caused and natural) still occur but

active suppression occurs due to the present potential for catastrophic

fires.

Zn the spruce-fir forest, small par:±aldisturbances from events SuCh an

windthrow, natural mortality, dLsease and lightning strLkes will likely

serve as the mechanism providing mid-seral succession and thus forest

regeneration and perpetuation. Total stand replacement and regeneration

from events such as logg.ng or catastrophic fires are not needed or

desired. Spruce and true firs are not fire adapted (i.e., they are thin

barked) compared to pine and Douglas-fir species which are fire tolerant

(i.e., they have thick bark) to moderate understory burning.

Within the mixed conifer forest end transition forest, logging, which

occurred some time ago, ham resulted in the reduction of large, dominant

Douglas-fir trees in some stands. The logging took the form of both

overstory removals and regeneration cuts which essentially took sites to a

younger seral stages (early successional grass/f orb/shrub stage or in the

case of an overutory removal to a younger forest stand of seedlings,

saplings or poles). Sites that were histor±cally forsatad (old harvest

areas, fuel breaks, abandoned roads, etc.) should be the priority areas

targeted for reforestation and silvicultural treatment.

98
k~

C

t’V ~

I

~

K~

SEP i~5 199a

Q~\N\

105
Mr. Sam Spiller 4

P.eforestation efforts will require:

1. A detailed understanding of how macro- and micro-habitat correlates to

squirr~ abundance and productivity;

2. An ecological classification and inventory of vegetation;

3. HabLtat CapabLlity/Habitat Suitability ndex model based on (1) and

(2);

4. A long-term habitat recovery (restoration) plan based on all of the

1 above.

Adaptation, Lmplementation, and monitoring of the restoration efforts will

be required. The habitat recovery plan must also include the flexibility

needed to adapt changes that may be necessary based on new information and

monitoring results. Some stands will require complete reforestation, while

other. may require varying amounts of silvicultural management. The average

midden characteristics in spruce-fir and transition zones (Mannan and Smith

1331) will help provide guidelines for desired future conditions within each

vegetation association.

The habitat management zone concept ihould be useful for co~municat±ng red

squirrel priorities1 habitat needs and for conducting planning and

consultations. In rev~ewing the management object±ves, particularly as it

relates to recreation management, we observed some Lnconsistencies. For

example, trail maintenance is discussed for zone 3 but not zones 1 and 2? In

zone 2 4.t states that all types of dispersed recreation are compatible, but zone

4 states that these areas are compatible with most types of dispersed

recreation. Which dispersed recreation uses would not be compatible, and if

zone 4 is currently unsuitable habitat then why would ~t be more restrictive

than suitable habitat? Would mountain bike use or horseback riding be

acceptable in zones 1 and 2? We would suggest that a meeting be held between

the ~SFWS and the Forest Service (with recreaticn personnel ±nvolved) to redraft

this section. A sample redraft of the second paragraph for zone 1 might read

like this:

Pedestrian day use (hiking, hunting, birding, fishing, picnLcking, etc.) and

camping are acceptable. Pets will be under reliable voice control or

physical restraint. Horses and mountain bikes are allowed only on trails.

Trails should be well maintained to discourage cross-country travel.

Snowmobile. arm not allowed. Leave-no-trace cL~ing ethics will be

utilized. Loss or depletLon of dead and downed woody habitat components

must be prevented. Human use impacts should be evaluated annually to

1 determine future management needs. If necessary, recreation use may be

managed by further restrictions (e.g. permit camping only, restrict hiking

to trails, campatove use only). Visitor education on the protection of red

squ±rrels and their habitat is essent±al. Visitor use must not displace or

modify important red squi~ ~el habitat. Znformational signs at major access

points to the zone should explain management practices. Signing should be

the minimum needed and pr±marily for resource protection.

100
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 2

As stated above, it is vital for a recovery plan to correctly identify the

~threatto the species, to recommend appropriate actions and to provide

an explanation that can withstand scientific and public scrutiny. The draft

recovery plan does not satisfy these criteria and has been the motivation

to look, not at details of the presentation, but at the overall basis for the

plan.

One approach to a recovery plan would be to:

1) determine the principal aspects of the environment that put the

creature at risk;

2) divide these into those which can be changed significantly and

those that will largely remain as they are;

3) develop a plan aimed at those factors that can provide significant

improvement in the condition of the species and reject those

previously instituted measures which do not provide any benefit to

the species.

4) optimize the plan for overall environmental impact and cost

99 effectiveness. This process will necessarily involve trade-offs both

for the benefit of the species concerned and in relation to other

species (including humans) using the area. The guiding principle

should be to select those actions that have the highest likelihood

of success at the minimum cost.

Clearly, the above considerations should be based on the best available

data and in particular incorporate new information available since the

species was first listed. In the case of the Mt. Graham red squirrel this

represents a substantial body of new data.

The current draft of the plan does not cover the above points adequately

and focuses inordinately on the preservation of even the smallest areas

of habitat. It fails to provide analysis to support even this decision. Finally

it does not make use of the data now available.

II. Threats to the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel

We are fortunate that the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Biological Update

Team convened by the USFWS provided a list of all such concerns in a

memorandum dated August 1st. 1990. The potential threats to the red

107
Technical and RdLtor±alCcumsnts

for

4T. GRAHAM R~D SQUIRREL DRAFT RRCOV~RY PLAN

2 “Huduonicus” should be lower case.

7 Need to add an explanation for how the 1991 capacity of approximately

G50 red squirrels was developed.

a Global warming impacts would not really slow forest succession in as

much as it may affect and alter vegetation types. Suggest stating it

1as “climatic shifts, due to global warming, may alter and affect

habitat.”

The last sentence of the first paragraph is unclear.

In the last paragraph replace “have been abandOned” to “remained

vacant.

9 Table 1 “Total” column header is misplaced.

110 Table 2 It is unclear what the 0.3lha size actually is. Does distance 92 I “around” for logs equate to DEE?

13 The term “original” forest uBed in the second paragraph gives the

impression that forests are a statLo rather than dynamic entity. Do

you mean “pre-settlement” forest and even then do we know what that

was? Suggest just changing it to “The forests of the Pinalenos...”

Replace “to decrease the number of artificially maintained openings

within the forest and” to “of old harvest areas and wildf±resto”.

14 In the fall of 1992 Mount Graha~n red squirrels were observed to cache

and util±zeponderosa pine for t~e first time, This occurred when the

cone crop was limited and ponderosa pine was one of the few species

1producing cones.

In the second paragraph change ‘excavations” to “harvesting”. Consider

adding a statement stating that mushroons may take lees effort to eat

th&n extracting seeds from cones, which may explain in part their

relative importance.

19 It states that the population has been estLmated 12 times and

references table 3. Table 3 contains 11 sets of population

information. The ±nformationfrom spring 1992 would make 12 sets but

was not included.

20 In the first paragraph add specific elevat±onreference to clarify.

In the second paragraph replace the words “little” and “heavy” to

“poor” and “good” respectively.

23 In the first paragraph the :erm ‘high elevatLon” means different thir~~

to dLffersnt people depending or’. who you are and where you are at cn

the mountain. Add specific elevatLonal ranges to clarify.

102
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 2

As stated above, it is vital for a recovery plan to correctly identify the

threat to the species, to recommend appropriate actions and to provide

an explanation that can withstand scientific and public scrutiny. The draft

recovery plan does not satisfy these criteria and has been the motivation

to look, not at details of the presentation, but at the overall basis for the

plan.

One approach to a recovery plan would be to:

1) determine the principal aspects of the environment that put the

creature at risk;

2) divide these into those which can be changed significantly and

those that will largely remain as they are;

3) develop a plan aimed at those factors that can provide significant

improvement in the condition of the species and reject those

previously instituted measures which do not provide any benefit to

the species.

4) optimize the plan for overall environmental impact and cost

99 effectiveness. This process will necessarily involve trade-offs both

for the benefit of the species concerned and in relation to other

species (including humans) using the area. The guiding principle

should be to select those actions that have the highest likelihood

of success at the minimum cost.

Clearly, the above considerations should be based on the best available

data and in particular incorporate new information available since the

species was first listed. In the case of the Mt. Graham red squirrel this

represents a substantial body of new data.

The current draft of the plan does not cover the above points adequately

and focuses inordinately on the preservation of even the smallest areas

of habitat. It fails to provide analysis to support even this decision. Finally

it does not make use of the data now available.

N. Threats to the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel

We are fortunate that the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Biological Update

Team convened by the USFWS provided a list of all such concerns in a

memorandum dated August 1st. 1990. The potential threats to the red

107
1j45 Under item 3, change the word “succession’ to “ecosystem” and end the

sentence.

Qj46 The need and use for two different brochures is unclear.

47 Item 321 should be made more posit±veby changing “how recreational u~

can disturb middens” to “how to recreate in a manner compatible with

1 squirrel..”

48 The Conner 1973 l±teraturec±tarionis not listed.

93152 This table is difficult to read and use w±thoutthe actual task

55 The conversions from English to metric and vice versa seem to often be

in error. Suggest that they all be carefully rechecked using original

numbers. In some cases original number. were metric, in other cases

1 English. Probably a typo in this particular case, but 10-15 snags/ha

is 24.7-37.1 snags per acre, not 406.

57 In Zone 2 it is descr~hed how currently closed roads should be

97 reforested. Some of these roads are needed for administrative access

for fire suppression purposes and, therefore, it is not desirable to

reforest all closed roads.

change “District Interdisciplinary Team led by the District Biologist”

to simply “interdisciplinary team.”

104
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 4

expected to be a single key precipitating circumstance. In the case of the

Mt. Graham red squirrel, the availability of food is likely to be the key

factor.

Huge population swings in response to changing food availability are well

known for squirrels especially at the geographical limits of their range.

They are well documented for Mt. Graham red squirrels, especially within

the spruce/fir habitat where population has responded directly to the

cone crop since monitoring began in 1986. In a small habitat with

strongly varying food supply, the population may fail to retain a breeding

pair, and so becomes extinct. The surviving population decreases far

faster than the food supply, because those that starve to death, also eat

before they die. It is clear that even a relatively large population, as large

as Mt. Graham could support under current climatic conditions (500 -

1000), is not immune to an extinction event caused basically by food

shortage.

For the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel, the near-extinction event of the late

1950s appears to be associated with food shortage due to extreme

drought and one or two resultant large forest fires. Indeed the squirrel

was not seen for several years and was thought to have been extirpated.

The population must have been substantially below the 150 squirrels

estimated for the spring of 1989. The squirrel nonetheless made a rapid

recovery and became quite prevalent during the early 1970s. Similarly the

population recovered rapidly after 1990 when there was a very good

98 cone crop. Food supply rather than human influences seems to be

crucial. Thus, for example, red squirrels were also very rare in 1929 when

very little forest cutting had taken place, and human activity on Mt.

Graham was still insignificant. It is also possible that disease could

weaken the population so that a single somewhat less severe

circumstance could precipitate extinction, but this does not negate the

point.

But near extinction events are not expected to be common. Indeed, the

population has survived for the last 25 years without any significant

assistance even after substantial alterations to its habitat (see section IV).

And, of course it has probably survived for approximately 10,000 years

before. The situation is similar to other small mammal populations of

S.W. mountain islands, where there is evidence of continuing extinction

events between the end of the Pleistocene and today. Even with no

human presence on the mountain, the Mt. Graham red squirrel would be

lO.k threatened. Its survival can only be guaranteed by human intervention at times of extremely short food supply. However, if the squirrel is given

109
RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE MOUNT GRAHAM

RED SQUIRREL

I. Introduction

The purpose of a recovery plan is not stated. I assume that the purpose

of a recovery plan under the Endangered Species Act may often be to

ensure the survival of the threatened species in the wild -- that is without

need for artificial support. Such a goal makes sense when the primary

threat to the species results from pre-existing or future human actions. It

makes no sense if the primary threat to the species arises from natural

causes. In that case, it is only through human intervention that the

species can be saved. It is, of course, essential that the true nature of

the threat be recognized before implementing the recovery plan if there is

98 to be any hope of helping the species in question. In the case of the Mt Graham red squirrel the principal threat arises from natural but

nonetheless extreme fluctuations in food supply. The recovery plan

recognizes this in principle but fails to provide corresponding actions. It

focuses instead on correcting relatively unimportant impacts on habitat

as if motivated by other concerns than saving this subspecies. The

wrong medicine may well be worse than no medicine at all. This is my

motivation for commenting on the draft recovery plan.

Actions under the Endangered Species Act must also be considered not

only for the preservation of an individual species, but also for the

preservation of other species through the survival of the Act. This was

noted by Regional Director Michael Spear in his testimony before a

Congressional Committee as the basis for his actions on the

conservation of the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel. The presentation of a

recovery plan is one such action. It has to be able to withstand public

and scientific scrutiny and also, if necessary, to stand up in court.

Early actions to preserve a species are usually taken in a hurry. There is

need to lean over backwards to preserve the creature against

99 possibilities of a threat, regardless of whether a threat is real or not.

Particularly important in early actions is to gather information to sort out

the reality of presumed threats, and to discover whether other risks,

assumed relatively unimportant, have been given adequate attention.

In contrast, a recovery plan is one in which the most likely scientific

conclusions can be allowed to dominate. Early caution can be

reconsidered in the light of new knowledge, and the cautionary steps

properly taken in the early stages can be re-evaluated. Only those

restrictions found to be necessary need be retained. But equally, other

actions and other restrictions may need to be implemented.

I ()6
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 4

expected to be a single key precipitating circumstance. In the case of the

Mt. Graham red squirrel, the availability of food is likely to be the key

factor.

Huge population swings in response to changing food availability are well

known for squirrels especially at the geographical limits of their range.

They are well documented for Mt. Graham red squirrels, especially within

the spruce/fir habitat where population has responded directly to the

cone crop since monitoring began in 1986. In a small habitat with

strongly varying food supply, the population may fail to retain a breeding

pair, and so becomes extinct. The surviving population decreases far

faster than the food supply, because those that starve to death, also eat

before they die. It is clear that even a relatively large population, as large

as Mt. Graham could support under current climatic conditions (500 -

1000), is not immune to an extinction event caused basically by food

shortage.

For the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel, the near-extinction event of the late

1950s appears to be associated with food shortage due to extreme

drought and one or two resultant large forest fires. Indeed the squirrel

was not seen for several years and was thought to have been extirpated.

The population must have been substantially below the 150 squirrels

estimated for the spring of 1989. The squirrel nonetheless made a rapid

recovery and became quite prevalent during the early 1970s. Similarly the

population recovered rapidly after 1990 when there was a very good

98 cone crop. Food supply rather than human influences seems to be

crucial. Thus, for example, red squirrels were also very rare in 1929 when

very little forest cutting had taken place, and human activity on Mt.

Graham was still insignificant. It is also possible that disease could

weaken the population so that a single somewhat less severe

circumstance could precipitate extinction, but this does not negate the

point.

But near extinction events are not expected to be common. Indeed, the

population has survived for the last 25 years without any significant

assistance even after substantial alterations to its habitat (see section IV).

And, of course it has probably survived for approximately 10,000 years

before. The situation is similar to other small mammal populations of

SW. mountain islands, where there is evidence of continuing extinction

events between the end of the Pleistocene and today. Even with no

human presence on the mountain, the Mt. Graham red squirrel would be

threatened. Its survival can only be guaranteed by human intervention at

times of extremely short food supply. However, if the squirrel is given

109
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 3

squirrel include: 1) inadequate habitat and hence food supply;

2) adverse effects of human presence; 3) fires; 4’ lisease

5) windthrow; 6) predation; 7) catastrophes; 8) Ic ~‘ density effects;

9) global climatic change; 10) construction impacts (from the

observatory); 11) population inconsistencies; 12) trade-off of long term

versus short term effects. Many of these are related and we chose to

group them into the following categories:

1) Natural Umitations

2) Effects Of Human Actions

3) Global Disasters

Obviously only human action will preserve the red squirrel from the

effects of natural limitations (category 1). On the other hand if human

action (category 2) is threatening the species, then change is required.

Global disasters can of course only be dealt with in a global fashion, so

we would not expect these to figure prominently in a recovery plan for

the red squirrel. These overall categories will form the basis of the

subsequent discussion. We first review basic information (some of it only

recently acquired) that appears relevant to this discussion and which is,

for the most part, missing from the recovery plan.

III Natural Limitations

3.1 Sky Island Populations

The tree squirrels of the sky islands of S. Arizona all exist in a marginal

habitat, which is barely able to support a single species. The smaller sky

islands have no tree squirrels at all, even though colonization from one

sky island to another nearby has been demonstrated to occur. Further,

this state existed at the time of the first biological investigations, and

shows that man is not responsible for this marginal habitat.

These squirrel populations are likely to be essentially homozygous. This

means that an extinction event is not a two stage event as with a

heterozygous population, first reducing genetic variety, and then, as a

result of reduced viability, a decline into extinction. Here instead there is

1 08
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 6

middens per ha. By fall of 1990, a further 1180 ha were surveyed, and

the number increased by 141, again 0.12 middens per ha. In the fall of

1991, a further 1011 ha had been surveyed, and a further 117 middens

were found, again at a rate of 0.12 middens per ha. Thus the rate of

discovery has not appreciably decreased, even though the area surveyed

has increased almost fourfold and now includes nearly all the area that

was previously deemed to have any potential at all as squirrel habitat.

The data as presented would suggest that further extension of the area

surveyed could substantially increase the squirrel counts. Indeed, the

map on p.6 seems to show that although the squirrel distribution is

spotty, and sometimes in streamers, the squirrels extend out to the limits

of the surveyed area as though it is the survey that limits the numbers

rather than the total population. This appears to be particularly true of

the population on the NE side of the range.

It would be helpful to know how much of the increase in midden

numbers occurred in previously surveyed areas. it would then be

possible to give a prediction of the numbers of middens remaining to be

discovered in all areas. Certainly the numbers suggest that an effort

100 should be made to survey the regions between 8000 and 9000 feet....

The data can then be used to assess true habitat quality and to decide

whether the population density (habitat quality) in newly explored territory

is essentially as good as the higher elevations as would appear, prima

facie, to be the case. It is stated that this data change will be reflected

in a new map that shows habitat suitability. Certainly the current

distribution does not fit well with habitat suitability previously shown. This

is important because the current data, and the discussion below both

suggest that the lower elevations are more important to the survival than

previously thought and perhaps more important than the spruce/fir.

(Winter aerial photographs of the Pinalenos seem to show a much more

distinctive appearance with foliage density, and it would be worth

exploring the use of these photographs for habitat typing.) The concern

is reflected in the changing number of middens assumed to be on Mt.

Graham. Currently (table 1) there are 549 middens known on Mt.

Graham, with some 85% of the area mapped where squirrels are

expected. On this basis one might expect about 650 middens on the

mountain. This is compared to the habitat analysis on p. 5 which is too

low by 50%, because habitat formerly assumed to be unsuitable has

101 been found to be suitable. One wonders whether enough assumed

“unsuitable” habitat has been surveyed to assure us that it is indeed

unsuitable.

ill
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 5

occasional assistance at times of greatest need, it can survive in the wild

!or essentially as long as man desires.

The draft states that the stabilization criterion is to provide sufficient

~iabitatto maintain a population of squirrels never fluctuating below 300

adults distributed throughout the Pinalenos. There is no evidence in the

report that this can be achieved without continuing human intervention

98 and much evidence from the historical record that it cannot. Such a

goal can be achieved only if food supply is guaranteed in times of

extended and general cone crop failures. The absence of any discussion

of supplementaty feeding is a serious weakness of the draft and should

be corrected in the final - or alternatively the stated goal should be

revised.

3.2 Relative Habitat Quality/Squirrel Population Distribution

In developing the recovery plan, the natural population and distribution of

squirrels is a key ingredient since it provides important data on the

relative quality of different habitat. At the time of the Biological Opinion

resulting from the Mt. Graham International Observatory proposal, the

USFWS conservatively assumed that the spruce/fir forest, where the

observatory was to be located, was critical to the survival of the red

squirrel. Initial surveys also focused on this region above approximately

10,000 feet. The squirrel population figures were estimated on this basis

(using a habitat quality index which reflected expected population

density). Estimated population figures fell below 150. The “refugium and

the adopted critical habitat largely cover this same area, although there is

little scientific evidence to support either designation.

100 In subsequent years, it has been possible to study the distribution of

squirrels more thoroughly albeit only down to an elevation of roughly

9000 feet, well above the lowest known squirrel middens. It is now

possible to provide some reassessment of these original assumptions.

The draft document contains some of this new information on total

population but not in a form which permits local changes in population

density to be separated from changes in total area surveyed. However, in

the absence of additional information, analysis of table I suggests some

remarkable conclusions.

For the 1986 survey, 1151 ha were studied, and a mean density of 0.18

middens per ha were found. To spring 1990, an additional 716 ha were

surveyed, and the middens known were increased by 83, or 0.12

110
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 8

From the perspective of habitat quality, it appears that the spruce forest is

almost irrelevant to the survival of the squirrel. Its population fluctuates

too erratically with cone crop. Survival depends on the steadier food

supply at lower elevations, if so, the principal reason for the “refugium”

and critical habitat designation of the spruce/fir forest requires reevaluation.

3.3 Fire

Fires are one of the greatest present risks to the red squirrel. At present

the Forest Service has a policy of strict fire suppression. However,

experience indicates that such a policy is not proof against development

of a catastrophic fire. The recovery plan correctly focuses attention on

reducing the risk of fire in the mixed conifer which is most important to

the survival of the squirrel. This is an example of human intervention

103 benefitting the squirrel. However, it requires that potential squirrel habitat

be made available for fire breaks, access etc. and a suitable compromise

must therefore be reached with the requirement to extend habitat.

It is also possible to contemplate establishment of a separate population

as protection against a disastrous fire. This should be addressed in the

recovery plan and potential sites identified. One possibility is at the N.W.

end of the Pinalenos in the region of Blue Jay Peak.

3.4 Disease

Direct transmission of disease from one squirrel to another tends to be

limited by the territorial behavior of red squirrels. For this reason, the

highest risk is likely to come by some other animal or bird carrying the

disease. Fortunately the isolated characteristics of sky islands tends to

make the transportation of disease less likely.

12

The possibility of transporting disease must be taken into account in

planning where to set up a second red squirrel population if this is

undertaken. It is the one reason that the N.W. peaks of the Pinalenos

may be less desirable than more distant peaks.

113
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 7

101 The recovery plan would be significantiy improved through inclusion of statistics of squirrel population per region surveyed and should if possible contain revised estimates of habitat quality.

In any event, the observations (e.g. Froehlich and Smith(1990)) suggest

that the population of red squirrels is substantial in areas other than the

spruce-fir “refugium”. Thus, both observation and theoretical analysis

lead us to question whether the spruce-fir is critical to the survival of the

red squirrel when times are difficult. Although spruce appears to be a

favorite food for red squirrels, it is at its geographic limit on Mt. Graham.

Even in climatically favorable areas, spruce is a highly unpredictable

crop, so on Mt. Graham it swings erratically between boom and bust -

with factors of around 100 in annual cone crop and hence food supply.

Further, the spruce forest provides little alternative for the squirrel during

the “bust” years. The spruce/fir squirrel population can be expected and

is observed to vary wildly and in particular to crash after two or three

successive years of poor cone crops — a not uncommon occurrence.

The number of middens in the spruce is then a reasonable measure of

boom periods, but it is not a predictor of the importance of the spruce

when the squirrel is at greatest risk. The spruce/fir middens then

102 become the squirrel equivalent of a ghost town. Instead we must expect

that those areas with the greatest variety of squirrel foods will be

important at critical times because cone crops of different trees will have

a degree of independence. Thus one expects that the mixed conifer

forest would be the region where the squirrel would have the greatest

chance of surviving. It may not have such a high density of middens,

because trees will be out of synchronism at their boom periods as well

as their bust.

The observations collected by Spicer (1986) appear to confirm this

analysis. The squirrel population in the spruce fir on Mt. Graham was

abundant in 1918, and in the late 1970s and early 1980s. At other times,

mammologists have been unable to find squirrels there, while signs or

squirrels have been found at lower elevations, typically between 8,000

and 9,500 ft. where there is mixed conifer. (Unfortunately it is in exactly

this area where survival competition between Abert’s squirrels and Red

squirrels is most likely to occur: see the discussion below). The most

recent confirmation of the importance of the mixed conifer in critical times

comes from the observations of the UA squirrel monitoring team led by

Paul Young, which found substantial numbers of squirrels in the mixed

conifer at times when the spruce/fir squirrel population was very low.

112
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 8

From the perspective of habitat quality, it appears that the spruce forest is

almost irrelevant to the survival of the squirrel. Its population fluctuates

too erratically with cone crop. Survival depends on the steadier food

supply at lower elevations. If so, the principal reason for the “refugium”

and critical habitat designation of the spruce/fir forest requires reevaluation.

3.3 Fire

Fires are one of the greatest present risks to the red squirrel. At present

the Forest Service has a policy of strict fire suppression. However,

experience indicates that such a policy is not proof against development

of a catastrophic fire. The recovery plan correctly focuses attention on

reducing the risk of fire in the mixed conifer which is most important to

the survival of the squirrel. This is an example of human intervention

103 benefitting the squirrel. However, it requires that potential squirrel habitat

be made available for fire breaks, access etc. and a suitable compromise

must therefore be reached with the requirement to extend habitat.

It is also possible to contemplate establishment of a separate population

as protection against a disastrous fire. This should be addressed in the

recovery plan and potential sites identified. One possibility is at the N.W.

end of the Pinalenos in the region of Blue Jay Peak.

3.4 Disease

Direct transmission of disease from one squirrel to another tends to be

limited by the territorial behavior of red squirrels. For this reason, the

highest risk is likely to come by some other animal or bird carrying the

disease. Fortunately the isolated characteristics of sky islands tends to

make the transportation of disease less likely.

12

The possibility of transporting disease must be taken into account in

planning where to set up a second red squirrel population if this is

undertaken. It is the one reason that the N.W. peaks of the Pinalenos

may be less desirable than more distant peaks.

113
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 9

3.5 Predation

Predation is a self-limiting process where the reduction in numbers of the

prey results in a succeeding loss in numbers of the predators. Because

104 the red squirrel is so sparsely scattered over Mt. Graham, it is not a

principal food for any other species, and it can be expected to be taken

incidentally.

To date squirrel birth rates appear adequate to deal with current rates of

predation, and still provide for rapid expansion cf the population in times

8 of food excess. Certainly when the population becomes very small,

predation becomes a possible mechanism for extirpation. However,

provision of food can ensure that the population is not permitted to reach

such low levels that occasional predation becomes critical.

3.6 Windthrow

Windthrow on Mt. Graham is of possible concern for those areas most

exposed to high winds. These tend to be places where the ground is

very rocky with limited soil, and where the prevailing westerly winds hit

exposed areas. This applies to the western peaks and ridges of the

mountain. Even here the effect seems to be small compared to other

impacts on habitat.

102

In contrast, the squirrel critical areas for survival tend to be in mixed

conifer habitat as discussed above, which is lower on the mountain. At

these lower elevations, middens are preferentially found on northern and

eastern exposures where the natural refrigeration action preserves cones

from sprouting and spoilage.

It is concluded that wind throw is irrelevant to the survival of the squirrel.

IV The Effect of Human Intervention

A number of human activities have affected or can potentially affect the

red squirrel. As interest in the red squirrel grew following the proposal for

the MGIO, these concerns have tended to focus primarily on loss of

habitat from logging, construction or recreation activities and potential

disturbance to the squirrel directly from human presence (eg noise

114
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 10

generation etc). Indeed part of the purpose of the “refugium”

recommended in the Biological Opinion was to provide a region where

the squirrel would not be bothered by human presence in case such

disturbance should prove to be an important factor. Other human

impacts include the Abert’s squirrel which was introduced to the

mountain in the 1940’s, presence of vehicular traffic, fire management

policies etc. We examine some of these in the following.

4.1 Habitat Loss

The most extensive loss of habitat has arisen from logging activities

which took place mainly in the 1960s although it began in the last

century. In comparison, habitat loss to other human activities, such as

recreation, access roads,construction etc. has been relatively modest.

While clear cut area is relatively modest, selective cutting of mature trees

was widespread. A total of some 2000 ha may well have been affected

and is now in varying stages of recovery. The effect of this on the

squirrel is still uncertain but, as noted above, the squirrel population did

recover rapidly in the 1970s, after its near extinction event of the late

1950s/early 1960s even though most of the logging had by then taken

place. This is consistent with the view expressed above, that the squirrel

is threatened not by the extent of its habitat but by the fact that from time

to time this habitat fails to produce anywhere near an adequate supply of

food. While reforestation of logged areas will bring some benefit to the

98 squirrel — and should be undertaken for more general reasons -- it can

bring at most a factor 1.5 increase in squirrel habitat. This is a trivial

factor in the face of the gigantic fluctuations that can occur in cone crop.

The basic problem would remain even if every acre of land were returned

to its natural state. There is, a fortiori, no reason to insist that the

relatively minor areas used for fire management, access, organized

recreation or scientific research should be sacrificed, because the areas

involved amount only to a few percent of the total and will bring no real

benefit to the squirrel in times of difficulty. They will of course raise by a

few percent the number of squirrels when food supplies are plentiful and

when the squirrel is in no difficulty.

It is concluded that the benefits to the squirrel of reforestation have been

overstated in the draft recovery plan and are unlikely to have any

significant impact on the survival of the squirrel. In their extreme form (no

tree cutting for any purpose) they appear to be largely punitive.

115
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 11

It is also appropriate to consider reforestation policies in different

habitats. From the discussion of section 3.2, it is clear that any

reforestation efforts would best be focused on the mixed conifer and

transition zones which provide the more stable squirrel habitat and which

therefore play a key role in the survival of the squirrel. By contrast, the

spruce/fir is so unstable in food supply that increased acreage in this

105 region is unlikely to be of any help to the squirrel in times of difficulty.

Modest tree cutting in this region should be viewed as entirely acceptable

in regard to the survival of the squirrel.

The recovery plan errs in stating that further tree cutting in the spruce/fir

is to be avoided. In reality, such cutting would have virtually no impact

on squirrel survival. In so far as restrictions on tree cutting serve any

useful survival function, they should apply to the mixed conifer zone.

4.2 Disturbance Caused by Human Presence

Part of the concern expressed in the Biological Opinion was in regard to

possible adverse effects of human presence in squirrel habitat. Such

concerns were one reason for establishing the “ret. -: sum”. As a result of

studies that have taken place in the last four years •n particular the

observations of the squirrel monitoring team under the leadership of Dr.

Paul Young, it is now known that human presence appears to have no

significant adverse effects on the squirrel. The results were obtained

during the construction of the new observatory road, cle~aring telescope

sites, and excavating and building foundations for telescopes, activities

which have surely been more disturbing than a the transit of pedestrians

across red squirrel territory. And yet the squirrel was not measurably

disturbed by these activities. (Indeed, the greatest attention the squirrel

paid to a disturbing noise was to the overflight of a helicopter!)

This is consistent with the behavior of red squirrels elsewhere. We

therefore concur with the conclusion of Appendix B of the draft, that

there is no need to restrict hiking, camping and similar activities in the

10 •refugium” and question the need for a “refugium”at all.

Restrictions on the public use of the “refugium” can be relaxed for two

reasons. First as noted above, the spruce/fir habitat of the “refugium” is

not particularly important to the survival of the squirrel — contrary to

previous belief. Second, the squirrel does not appear to need protection

from disturbance through normal human activities. In the absence of any

coherent reason for maintaining the “refugium”, the recovery plan should

recommend that it be eliminated.

116
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 12

4.3 Barriers to Migration.

There have been concerns that human activity may have resulted in the

erection of barriers to migration and that this might affect breeding and

hence squirrel survival. Those concerns might even be enhanced from

those models of the squirrel population which assume that the population

may be limited mainly by breeding statistics (demographic stochasticity).

These concerns can be allayed in regard to the red squirrel.

First, observations of the squirrel population have included a recovery

from poor cone crops in which the population has made a rapid

expansion. Such a recovery would be a long drawn out affair if the

population were limited by breeding statistics. Instead, the observed

rapid recovery shows that the squirrel population is limited by food

availability, and can rapidly expand if more food becomes available (see

section 3.1). Thus there are possibilities or rapid expansion regardless of

migration, and a small population is more secure than might have been

previously assumed.

It also appears that concerns about the migration of squirrels being

limited by human action have been overdrawn. Barriers to migration are

106 those things that prevent squirrels from migrating rather than those

things we might imagine as being barriers. Only empirical studies can

reveal what barriers are real and what are imaginary. There are now

direct observations that suggest that most previously assumed barriers

on Mt. Graham are not problem barriers for the squirrel. The first

concerns the migration of squirrels over fire breaks in the spruce/fir

forest near the observatory site during the phase of rapid population

growth in 1990. The monitoring team noted no significant effect of such a

barrier and even reported sightings of squirrels in the open area. The

second involves the relatively isolated population between Ladybug

Saddle and Turkey Flat. This group is over a mile away from the nearest

other population at the top of Wet Canyon. But the Wildlife Staff Officer

of the Coronado Forest observed juvenile squirrels even further away.

These were near the Swift Trail, below Turkey Flat at an elevation of

7,200 ft. Between them and their source, presumably above Turkey Flat,

lay the S-bends of the Swift Trail, and the 80 summer cottages of Turkey

Flat, with their human inhabitants and pets. Yet the juveniles apparently

negotiated these barriers. Also there have been observations reported

of red squirrels in relatively open areas, so that open areas are

apparently not a severe barrier either.

117
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 13

Another observation has been that small isolated groups appear to

persist even when the overall population is greatly reduced. Thus the

presence of a population near Turkey Flat has been known since 1929,

and the population on Grant Hill has been known since 1952, both of

them being times at which the overall population was small. If travel

between colonies was reduced, one would expect that statistical

breeding accidents would eliminate these populations first at times of

difficulty for the creature. The observations show that this is not the

case.

106 Some observations do show barriers to migration. The West Peak/Blue

Jay Peak area was reported in use by the squirrel in the 1960s, but this

area appears to have remained unpopulated for the past several years.

However, this area of the mountain is isolated by a long rocky ridge, that

represents a more severe barrier than any constructed by human activity.

I conclude that there is no evidence for significant limits to migration of

red squirrels arising from barriers created by human activity.

4.4 The Abert’s Squirrel

In the 1940s, the Abert’s (tassel-eared) squirrel was introduced to Mt.

Graham and has since established itself throughout the coniferous forest.

It seems to have taken over the ponderosa pine at lower elevations but

has been observed throughout the mixed conifer and the spruce/fir (see

recovery plan). It thus extends over some 12,000 ha. It also eats the

same cones as the red squirrel and has been observed to rob red

squirrel middens although the red squirrel owner usually succeeds in

driving it away. There seems to be little doubt that the Abert’s squirrel

has a significant impact on red squirrel food supply. For a species that is

food supply limited this is a serious matter. The possibility exists that it

may have driven the red squirrel out of the ponderosa pine zone

107 although it is not yet known whether this would seriously impact the

survival of the red squirrel.

More seriously, the sky island sites in the south west are apparently

capable of supporting naturally at most one species of tree squirrel. The

best evidence comes from the application of an Area-Species plot. This

reveals that the size of minimal habitat for natural retention of a single

tree squirrel species is not much less than the size of the Mt. Graham

forest. Such an analysis obviously includes the effects of population

fluctuations. It then follows that, in the absence of further human

118
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 14

intervention one of the two species there at present will die out.

Deliberate extirpation of the Abert’s population seems difficult if not

impossible.

107 The conclusion is that preservation of both red squirrels and Abert’s

squirrels on Mt. Graham can only occur with monitoring and occasional

intervention. The recovery plan for the red squirrel should include plans

for monitoring the interaction between it and the Abert’s squirrel, a policy

on whether to preserve the endemic species and, if so a means for so

doing.

4.5 Global Catastrophes

A catastrophe is an event of such magnitude and unexpectedness that

planning for it is impossible. Thus in event of nuclear war, for example,

all schemes for the preservation of endangered species are likely to fail.

Equally, if there is a collision of a small asteroid with the Earth as

happened at the end of the Cretaceous, massive extinctions can be

expected to occur. The Endangered Species Act is not planned to cover

such eventualities. (In the past, such massive extinctions have occurred,

108 but Nature has adequately restocked the Earth with new species.)

Global climatic change can have natural as well as man made origins. It

has been a constant of the Earth’s history. If it occurs slowly enough it

will result in the Mt. Graham forest migrating up or dowry the mountain

side, and the squirrel will move with it as it has done in the past. If,

however, it occurs on a rapid time-scale, the scene will be catastrophic

and well beyond anything that can be regulated by the Endangered

Species Act. Certainly neither scenario is reasonable content for this

recovery plan.

VI. Principal Conclusions

The Mt. Graham Red Squirrel is threatened principally by natural but

large fluctuations in food supply, not by past or planned actions of

humans.

A recovery plan for the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel can at best restore it to

a position where it is for the bulk of its time without need of intervention.

The key ingredient of a recovery plan must, therefore, be readiness to

intervene.

119
Red Squirrel Recovery Page 15

Intervention must include supplementary feeding at times of very poor

cone crop; such intervention is not expected to be needed frequently.

An essential requirement for occasional but successful intervention is a

continuing monitoring program.

While it is appropriate to reforest areas previously impacted by logging,

fires, or other means, it is not essential and perhaps even detrimental to

carry out such reforestation to the ~xcIusionof other considerations (eg.

fire suppression, monitoring access).

Reforestation efforts should focus on the mixed conifer rather than the

spruce/fir in view of the latter’s unstable and unreliable cone crop

production. It should also focus on Northern and Eastern slopes where

midden natural refrigeration is most effective.

From the perspective of red squirrel survival, there is no reason either of

habitat quality or of need for isolation from human disturbance to retain

the “refugium’. The recovery plan should recommend its elimination.

There is no evidence that normal human activities pose a threat to the

squirrel. Such activities should accordingly be permitted to resume.

A decision is required on whether intervention to ensure the survival of

the red squirrel against the introduced Abert’s squirrel is possible and/or

appropriate.

If the purpose is to ensure the survival of the squirrel, consideration

should be given to establishing a separate population as a back-up in

case of accidental failure. The optimum for this is to maintain a separate

population on a second isolated smaller forest. Such a group will of

course require a higher level of intervention, but it can still remain

essentially in the wild. It is suggested that the northernmost peaks of the

Pinalenos could themselves serve as home for such a back-up colony.

It is necessary to plan for a proper development of the forest, so that fire

risk is not unacceptably high, and that fires will remain small.

N.J. Woolf September 1992

3336. N. Camino Los Brazos,

Tucson

Arizona, 85715

120
U.S. FISH A!~D WILDLIFE SERVICE

C/O Rich Kvale, District Ranter

Coronado National Forest

Safford, Ariwna

The people of Graham county have and will continue to assert our

rights of access on roads that were fully available to our vehicular

use ~r~orto 1990. This retort and draft appears designed to further

degrade our way of life and flies in the face of our protection under

the 9th and ~Cthamen&ents of the constitution.

We welcome biological study and involvment of the sciences on 1!t.

Graham but not to the exclusion of human freedom to access and the

traditional uses this area has provided for generat~ons.

109 This study and prot~csal goes to far in its access denials based

on its o~ adz~iissions of incomleteness and the presu~ticn of what

habitats the s~u~rrel may or may not be adaptable ~o.

Again I state that Graham County citizens and all humans should

first have full access rights restored as they were with the squirrel’s

habitat held in the second position.

Finally ccnce~ing any further road or area restrictions, we

demand a full review of any such prc~osals b~ held with our county

officials and a public forum be called with our citizens as well as

complying with all :~rE?A regulations,

Cordi...ly,

C.D. Cochran, President

Graham County Chapter of People For The West

Safford Arizona

121
r

~s~&r7;,

9sa~~VA&~#=~ g~=44

f1&ra cAQrd4A3⁄4tt

lozw 9$ City. 4-~4o’1⁄2I(4-2 ~‘ZSY6

W ~yq~ JA4c~ kit

- &?6tf- frt/ke.

7/ :71i/d4Aw’k fN~,

h

AZT.53~-A

r.. 8-54744

Th& -‘A- $t=74

122
SEPI5~ w

AWN,.

THE UNIVERSITY OF

C~fllce ofthe Senior Vice President ARiZONA 512 Administration

Academic Affairs andProvost TucsoN ARJZpNA Tucson,Arizona 85721 september 11, 1992 (602) 621-1856

FAX 602 621-9118

Mr. Sam F. Spiller

Field Supervisor

U.S. Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

3616 W. Thomas, Suite #6

Phoenix, AZ 85019

Dear Sam:

The University of Arizona was most pleased to receive a copy of the draft

Recovery Plan for the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel. We have reviewed your draft

recovery plan in substantial detail and will comment through several venues.

First, and probably most important to the technical aspects of the plans

you will be receiving a detailed critique from the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel

Biology Team. As you are aware, the Biology Team has substantial first hand

experience with the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel and will provide some very useful

comments which should greatly facilitate having an effective recovery plan. In

addition I would like to address several more generic issues in order to

contribute to the recovery plan in a constructive and productive fashion.

The recovery plan only makes brief mention of the Arizona-Idaho

Conservation Act (Public Law 100-696) and does not mention at all the one-hundred

fifty (150) acre “Mount Graham International Observatory Site” referred to and

described in article 601(b) of the Act. This area is depicted on the Forest

Service Map adopted by article 601(b) and should be included, preferably

superimposed, on the map of the Habitat Management Zones. In addition, specific

110 mention of the Observatory site and the University’s right to use up to twentyfour (24) acres within that site for astrophysical research purposes should be

mentioned and provided for in the recovery plan. It is important that the

recovery plan acknowledge and incorporate into its fabric the reality of the Mt.

Graham International Observatory and the management opportunities presented by

the monitoring teams data base as well as the research opportunities afforded by

the funds made available to the Biological Study Team.

• The plan as currently drafted does not set forth specific “down—listing or

de-listing criteria1’, this is unusual for recovery plans since most contain

trigger points at which an endangered species will be down-graded to threatened

30 and a further point at which threatened species will be removed from the list

altogether. This omission is of pivotal importance since, no matter how many Red

Squirrels inhabit the mountain, we will never know whether the population is

viable unless specific criteria are established.

As discussed above the draft plan fails to mention its relationship to the

Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act (AlGA). Moreover, no mention is made of the

Forest Service Special Use Permit and the Observatory Management Plan mandated

110 by the Act. Since the Recovery Plan is subsidiary to the AlGA and its provisions, it must not contravene them in any way that substantially interferes

with the intent of Congress and the passing of the Conservation Act.

123
Page Two

SpecifPcally, the AICA provides for construction of three telescopes, roads and 110 facilities. The Act also provides the criteria for future approval of additional

~observatoryfacilities, up to seven telescopes using up to 24 acres of Red

I Squirrel Habitat. The Recovery Plan cannot impose a general prohibition on

approved tree cutting in the designated Observatory Site.

The plan appears unduly focused on total habitat conservation for a single

species. While the restoration of squirrel habitat is appropriate in so far as

it provides a significant increase in food supply, it is simplistic to insist

that no trees at all should be cut down in the future. The marginal benefit of

a few extra trees must surely be compared with other factors, such as access for

fire management, which may be far more beneficial to the squirrel. The use of

111 acreage for other purposes, including access for recreation, scientific research

and forest management purposes should be assessed on a cost benefit Lasis. Such

use should also be placed in perspective with natural losses of habitat, due to

fire, damage by storms, bears etc. which, on a cumulative basis, are far more

significant to the squirrel. In any event, these considerations should be

documented in the recovery plan.

We would prefer to see the plan acknowledge the need to preserve the right

of Native Americans to exercise their religious activities if they desire to.

We realize that by removing constraints on access to the “critical habitat” this

will be accomplished defacto. However, it is our belief that a statement

addressing this important point needs to be in the plan. We would also like to

stress that we are extremely pleased that during the first three years of multiagency cooperation between the Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish,

Forest Service’ and University of Arizona, the official census figures for the red

squirrel have re than doubled. Having spent over $600,000.00 in the last three

10 plus year fc squirrel monitoring and squirrel biology, we are committed to

continue working with federal and state agencies on biological matters relating

to the Observatory site. It is my view that these expenditures have created to

date a data base unparalleled in the monitoring and study of endangered

populations. This coupled with the proposed University of Arizona expenditures

over the next six years provides a unique opportunity to obtain high quality

quantitative data on an endangered subspecies and its recovery.

We trust that our comments concerning the recovery plan will be considered

and incorporated as appropriate. We share with you the strong belief that an

adequate recovery plan will go a long ways towards maintaining the Mt. Graham Red

Squirrel and developing approaches that will be applicable with other endangered

populations. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any further

information o~i the points raised here.

A. Cusanovich

Interim Sr. Vice President for Academic

Affairs and Provost

MAC/ft

124
THE UNiVERSITY OF

Office ohhe Vice President for Research ALR.IZONA Tucson. Arizona 85721

Gmhsm Biology Programs TUCSON ARIZONA FAX: (602) 621-9190

Ph. (602) 621-1062

E-Mail: YNGPC~CCT.AIUZO1~tA.EDU

8 September 1992

Mr. Sam Spiller, Field Supervisor

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services

3616 W. Thomas, Suite 6

Phoenix, AZ 85019

Dear Sir:

We appreciate the opportunity to review the July 22, 1992 Draft Recovery Plan for

the Mt. Graham red squirrel. Unfortunately, we have found it a difficult task because the

document lacks comprehensive organization. The writing style is awkward and verbose;

many statements are redundant. It does not follow the GPO Style Manual guidelines, nor do

literature citations follow the recommended format. The document contains an

overwhelming amount of imperative, unsubstantiated, biased, or emotional statements, which

are not appropriate for a document released by the Federal Government for public review.

Some data and information sources are poorly or inaccurately cited, which prevents

retrieval of references. For reader information, the location of unpublished sources should

be specified. Data collected by the University of Arizona - Mt. Graham Red Squirrel

Monitoring Program were inaccurately represented and inappropriately attributed to personal

communication. The appropriate report(s) from the monitoring program should be cited as

the source(s) of the authors’ information.

31

The authors are inconsistent in their use of units of measure and have made

conversion errors. Similarly, references to forest habitats are inconsistent, alternately

referred to as “associations”, “types”, or “zones”. No source is cited for the vegetation

classification system, nor do the authors provide a description ofthe vegetation. There is

also inconsistent use of common names for Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 2rahamensis and for

Sciurus aberti

.

The Draft Recovery Plan contains considerable speculation about potential hazards to

the Mt. Graham red squirrel population with little or no reference to supporting

documentation. There are no specific management goals, only ambiguous statements.

Management and recovery goals must be clearly stated so there is no dispute when they are

achieved. Obscurely stated goals have the potential for mar.ipulation. _________________

125
Young and Sanderson -- 2

There is no plan, other than habitat rehabilitation through reforestation, to increase or

expand the range of the red squirrel population on the Pinaleijo Mountains. The considerable

31 body of literature on the management of tree squirrels has not, apparently, been accessed.

“Further study” is an unacceptable criterion when the Coronado National Forest is

commanded to begin immediate action on various land closures, reforestation, etc.

The absence of any discussion concerning the current and future plans for

astrophysical development on the Pinaleiios is conspicuous. Because the development ofthe

Mt. Graham International Observatory is a very controversial topic, potential problems

associated with the project should be specifically addressed in the plan.

61 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the responsibility to provide clearly defined

objectives and goals, based on the best available information, that will most likely lead to the

recovery of the Mt. Graham red squirrel. We do not feel that this Draft Recovery Plan

provides that direction.

Sincerely,

H. Reed Sanderson

Resident Biologist

Dept. of Ecol. & Evol. Biology

University of Arizona

Tucson AZ 85721

cc: Dr. M. Cusanovich, VP for Research, U of A

Please note: Enclosed are our detailed canments regarding the Draft Recovery

~1an for the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel

126
Review and Comments of Mt. Graham Red Squirrel

Draft Recovery Plan

Prepared by:

Paul J. Young, University of Arizona

H. Reed Sanderson, University of Arizona

Numbers refer to specific comments indicated by circled numbers

on copy of Draft. Some editorial comments have been noted

directly on the copy of the Draft:

1 This is an imperative statement that does not allow for

exceptions.

1

2 Define “habitat ecology”.

3 How can a Recovery Plan be written without knowing, or at

least hypothesizing, the requirements for recovery? The

fact that the plan was written suggests that some of the

requirements for recovery are known.

112

Some logged habitat will have sufficiently mature trees to

support red squirrels in much less time than 100 years.

Why is there no comparison with red squirrel populations on

nearby mountain ranges in logged habitat?

94 j4 Either delete, due to irrelevance, or move to paragraph on

the following page with other size description.

Ficrure 1 shows the distribution of red squirrels in Arizona,

this paracrra~h compares the size of two subspecies. Change

figure to depict size, delete it, or refer to it in the

first paragraph of this page, which describes the

distribution.

6 “In press” infers that it has been accepted for publication,

1yet no journal or publisher is listed in the literature

cited.

The squirrels are not “confined” to the upper elevation.

They are concentrated there, but are free to move around or

expand into other areas.

45 8 -Is the West Peak population isolated or locally extinct

?

This sentence is contradictory and speculative. Map (Figure

2) does not show that West Peak or Blue Jay Peak have been

surveyed.

113 9 What is the source of the density data? How current is it?

Do areas used for the calculation of density include non—

suitable habitat? This information is contrary to the

127
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

findings of the University of Arizona - Mt. Graham Red

Squirrel Monitoring Program (UA-RSMP).

10 No data was solicited from Dr. Young and he did not provide

any unpublished data directly to the Recovery Team. What is

113 the source of this data? The sentence is inaccurate and

misleading based on current UA-RSMP data.

11 Inconsistent use: are they forest associations or zones

?

1

12 What is the elevation of the mixed—conifer association/zone?

13 Froehlich (1990) has insufficient data to determine whether

this is “exceptional” or not. Her study was conducted

114 during a period of low food availability in spruce-fir, and

no period of abundant food availability. The sample size in

the study is small (9 squirrels, 29 middens).

14 Figure 2 is of very poor quality and virtually useless.

115 1 What do the black dots indicate? Why are West Peak and Blue

Jay Peak not included? Were they surveyed?

15 How much habitat is potentially suitable for red squirrels?:

9083 ha in this paragraph, only 4750 ha in the following

1paragraph. Later statements suggest that 85% of the

potential habitat has been surveyed for midden sites, it is

important to be consistent about how much habitat there is,

or to indicate that such conclusions are tentative.

16 Has this been verified? How much of the ponderosa pine

habitat was surveyed? Red squirrels on the Mogollon Rim,

White Mountains, and Sacramento Mountains use ponderosa

116 pine. Why don’t the Mt. Graham squirrels? Cite the source

of the information, or indicate that such conclusions are

speculative or tentative.

17 Inconsistent use of units of measure, SI units are used

elsewhere.

1

18 What is the source for determining habitat quality on the

basis of midden density? How was midden density determined,

by transects, or survey? Is density a reliable measure of

habitat quality? (refer to Van Home, B. 1983. J. Wildlf.

Mngt. 47:893-901). If density is used to estimate habitat

quality, shouldn’t the density of scruirrels be used rather

than midden sites, some of which may be abandoned? U.S.

Forest Service personnel recently requested that the UA—RSMP

not use these habitat rankings because they are

“inaccurate’t.

2

128
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

19 What is “the habitat”? How many hectares? Cite source for

117 Habitat Capability Model.

20 Location of unpublished data? Title of report?

1121 85% of 9083 or 4750 ha?

22 Midden establishment and abandonment is a normal occurrence.

How often are areas re—surveyed for newly established

118 middens? If areas are not re—surveyed, how does that affect

population and density estimates?

119123 Does “remaining area” = unsurveyed area?

If these areas have “little or no” regeneration, how can ~I24they be assessed for species composition?

25 How, or where, do food resources figure into estimates of

carrying capacity? Numerous studies have demonstrated the

120 regulation of red squirrel populations by food supply. Food

resources should be included in the analysis.

26 Will global warming “slow” succession or drastically alter

the entire habit? It seems likely that global warming could

shift plant communities to higher elevations. Is global

warming a realistic factor within the time frame of this

plan? If so, what can be done to mitigate its effects?

1

27 18% of 9083 or 4750 ha?

28 Is Transition part of mixed—conifer, or a separate

association?

29 Habitat zones or associations

?

30 Inconsistent use of units of measure.

31 This paragraph is irrelevant and redundant. Midden

distribution is discussed previously, relative to habitat

121 type/association/zone, and habitat is discussed relative to

elevation.

132 Table 2 has no information on midden distribution by

1 elevation. This reference is not relevant to Table 2.

33 The discussion of midden use is discontinuous; first on page

93 5; then again on page 8. What is the purpose of this

discussion? That red squirrels change criteria for

selecting midden sites, that midden site quality changes, or

3

129
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

that distribution of midden sites change with changes in

habitat or other resources?

117 j34 Location of source of data?

Are “new” middens newly established, or just newly

122 V5 discovered possibilities. by surveys? Distinguish between these two

1 j36 Put total in separate column. Does inventoried mean

“surveyed”?

37 Cite source of data (Mannan and Smith, 1991). Include

values for random sites. Sample sizes and a measure of

123 variance (standard deviation or range) should be included so

the reader can determine the quality of the data.

1 j38 Does habitat depend on these conditions, or do the

squirrels?

~ Define closed canopy. What % canopy coverage in “closed”.

1 j40 The Mannan and Smith study was conducted in the Pinalefios,

not in “other” red squirrel habitat.

41 Increased from what? Where is the comparison? Cite source

124 for this statement.

42 Cite source of information.

1 43 The range of the red squirrel in the Pinalefio mountains lies

roughly between 32037i30/I and 32o45IOO~I North latitude

and, therefore, is closer to 330 than to 320.

~44 Figure 1 has no latitude •(or longitude) reference. Cite

125 source of information. This would be more appropriate in

e discussion of distribution - page 3.

1 145 Cite source of information. Is this data collected from the

Pinalefios? If so, where is the recording station?

46 Cite source. How much “greater” is insolation on the

126 Pinaleflo Mountains than at nearby areas such as the Mogollon

Rim, White Mountains, Mogollon Mountains, Black Range, or

the Sacramento Mountains? The Sacramento Mountains have red

squirrel populations overlapping in latitude with the

Pinalezios.

147 Speculative, cite data to support this contention.

127

4

.130
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

48 Speculative, neither of these studies examined the selection

of midden sites by red squirrels. They describe

127 characteristics of sites relative to random sites.

149 What kind of nests, red squirrel nests? The first two

1sentences would be better placed in behavior or ecology.

50 This study had a very small sample size (29 middens and only

9 squirrels). Grass nests may disintegrate rapidly,

128 therefore unoccupied middens may no longer have grass nests

at them. Data from UA-RSMP indicates that the use of grass

nests is common.

51 This should be based on the densities of squirrels and on

food resources, not on the density of midden sites. This

1statement contradicts a previous statement about the highest

density of middens occurring in spruce—fir.

152 Froehlich (1990) suggests this, but has no data on the

127 availability of potential midden sites to support this

-statement; consequently, it is speculation.

53 Are these vegetation types, zones, or associations

?

Inconsistent reference to the mountain range, is Mt. Graham

synonymous with Pinalefio? Mt. Graham is only one peak in

the range according to U.S. Geological Survey topographic

maps. Pinale~io Mtns. and Graham Mtns. may be acceptable

synonyms, but not “Mt. Graham.

1

54 How does this differ from upper elevation mixed—conifer?

Upper and lower mixed—conifer are not defined.

55 Unclear. “As the most important features” for distinguishing

midden sites from random sites?

56 Habitat selection, or availability of suitable midden sites?

127 We do not know of any studies regarding habitat selection by

Mt. Graham red squirrels.

57 See Mannan and Smith (1991): x canopy cover at middens =

85% (table 2 this document), and is the same as random sites

1in Froehlich (1990). This is a contradiction that indicates

a possibility of error.

58 Both paragraphs are awkward, rambling, and verbose; they

93 should be condensed and combined. Values for random sites

are not included in Table 2.

5

1—’1 131
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan —

59 How is the age of a “midden plot” determined? This should

read “trees on midden plots”. Why is there a range given

for the average? There can be only one mean value; give the

mean and a measure of varia: ..e.

1

60 Awkward wording. This reads as though the random plots were

measuring something. Were the trees on the random plots

found to b’- about the same age as those at midden sites in

spruce fir -ut not in mixed—conifer?

129 j61 Is this paragraph a summary? It repeats the discussion on

page 5.

62 In comparison to what? What was exoected? Are middens

disproportionately distri~uted in respect to orientation?

What is the lower—elevat~~n mixed conifer?

63 Cite source of statement.

64 Citation style differs from others for USDA-Forest Service.

Have all of these food items been documented for Mt. Graham

red squirrels, as implied? If not, cite sources of original

data, not a review of the sources.

65 What is it about conifer seed that influences these life

history traits: the amount of seeds, nutritional value,

chemical composition? Cite the source of this information.

What are eruptive dispersals?

166 Inconsistent reference to mountain range.. This implies that

the observation applies to only one peak on the range.

67 170 of what type of cones? The amount of food available to

a squirrel from a cone varies greatly from one species of

conifer to another. Miller’s report does not distinguish

between cones of different species. His estimate of the

number of cones required is not based on data from the

Pinalefios, but is derived from two other sources and is

based on the average number of seeds in a lodgepole pine

cone (not present on the Pinale~ios). Hi~ estimate of the

daily metabolic energy requirement of ret... squirrels is

speculative and refers to no source. Sucn data, however, is

available in the published literature.

68 Inconsistent use of units of measure.

69 Froehlich’s (1990) behavior data is mostly anecdotal in

nature. No standard methods were used to determine the

amount of time a squirrel spent in any particular tree or

6

132
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

how many trees were used for food sources. Is this the

average home range size, or the average number of trees used

per hectare? Include sample size.

70 Cite source.

71 Why is it “unique”? Why “especially” in areas where

Douglas—fir co—exists with Engelmann spruce? Cite source.

The use of Douglas—fir cones by red squirrels is not uniaue

to the Pinalefios, nor dependant on the presence of Engelmann

Spruce. Red squirrels use Douglas—fir wherever it is

available, see Finley, 1969.

72 “More widespread” compared to what?

73 What are broken habitats? Does this mean fracrmented

?

74 Why does this reduce its contribution to the food supply?

If Douglas-fir occurs where red squirrels occur, it will

contribute to the food supply. Just because red squirrels

do not occupy all the habitat with Douglas-fir in it, does

not reduce its contribution to the food supply in areas

where red squirrels are present.

1

75 Cited source does not indicate this. Per cent values given

in Froehlich (1990) refer to the number of times squirrels

were seen feeding on fungi relative to the total number of

times squirrels were seen feeding, and these data provide no

basis to determine how much of the diet was fungi.

76 Cite source.

77 Cite source.

178 Inconsistent with other references to mountain range.

79 Unpublished data? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to quote

this “personal communication” as “personal observation”? Are

there data available to show preference? Preference should

not be confused with availability, suitability, or

necessity.

1

80 What does “most important season for mushrooms” mean? Is

the season important for the mushrooms, or are the mushrooms

important to the squirrels during this season? “Most

important” is imperative; what data support this? Cite

source.

7

133
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

93 81 Unpublished data? See 77 above. What are the species, is

there a list? How are excavations of mushrooms by red

squirrels distinguished from those by Abert’s squirrels,

chipmunks, or rock squirrels?

82 Discussion is disjointed; part of this discussion is at top

of page.

83 February is not early spring. Cite source(s).

84 “Specialized” in what respect? Many rodents in temperate

climates have only one day of receptivity during each

oestrus cycle, and most mammals have comparably short

oestrus cycles.

85 tJphoff (1990) conducted research on the Mogollon Rim in

Arizona. “The Rim” is more appropriately described as

I“central” and not “northern” Arizona.

86 Be specific; this is based on one female in one year. Does

this really mean two breeding seasons per year, or do some

females have two litters during the breeding season in some

years?

87 Don’t confuse litters with breeding seasons (as per 86

above).

130 188 Cite original source. USDA 1988 is not original data.

89 Analysis of embryos, or examination of reproductive tracts?

90 Inconsistent usage; are these the Pinalefio squirrels or Mt.

Graham squirrels? Does Pinalef±osquirrels include the

introduced Abert’s squirrel and the rock squirrel?

91 Dr. Young was not asked for, and did not provide, any

unpublished data to the Recovery Team. What is the source

for this data? Cite specific UA—RSMP report, if that is the

1source.

92 What observers? Cite source of the data.

93 Inaccurate. Squirrels may be sexually mature and breed for

the first time following their first winter.

94 “Virgin” squirrels? Try “primiparous” for a less

anthropomorphic approach, that emphasizes copulation and not

sexual maturity.

8

134
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

1 j96

131 ~95 Compare proportions of breeding adult and yearling

squirrels. Cite source.

Cite source.

132 197 Delete, or specify how this data will be gathered.

98 This statement is nonsense! Hundreds of thousands of rodent

population sizes have been estimated, many of them more

accurately than the Mt. Graham red squirrel population.

Population size estimates are a key component of almost

every study of population ecology. Does this mean a

complete count of the population size? Why is the Mt.

Graham red squirrel so specifically unique from other red

squirrels, that information from other populations does not

apply?

99 Table 3 lists only .~j population estimates. Which one is

missing?

1

100

133

101

134

102

133

103

1

Why are there “original” and “revised” estimates? Which is

correct? What is different for “minimum” and “maximum”

estimates? The text does not explain how they are different

and does not imply that there should be a minimum and

maximum estimate. How are two estimates derived from one

sample?

Why were 40 middens arbitrarily excluded? Were all youngof—the—year excluded from the estimate? Were all newly

created middens excluded, and if so, why? Have the 40

excluded middens been included in subsequent estimates?

Table would be more useful if population sizes were given by

habitat type/association/zone. The discussion of midden

distribution stresses the differences between habitats, but

the discussion on population size avoids it. Include per

cent occupancy in the table.

“Most biolocrists”, have all biolocrists been surveyed or

polled? Do 51% of them agree?

104 This statement elevates the sub-species to specific status.

On what basis, cite source.

105 Why aren’t population densities presented here? Midden

densities are equally in need of updating “using the most

current data”, and they are presented in the document.

106 Table 3 shows this to be 348 squirrels.

9

135
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

1 j107

108

135

“extremely low” implies comparison; compared to what?

Cite specific source of data. The document implies that

this work has been done since 1989, are there no reports on

cone crops?

109 Dr. Young has had no personal communication with the

Recovery Team since the autumn of 1989. Cite the source of

this data - UA-RSMP report?

“also” implies comparison, or in addition, to something.

Explain how this “reflects” the increased population

available for the 1991 reproductive season.

If population increase in 1990 was due to good cone crop,

and the population continued to increase in 1991, what

explanation is there for the decrease in numbers following

the good spruce cone crop of 1986?

113 There are no solid data on historical numbers or

distribution of squirrels in the Pinalefio Mountains. It

should be made clear this is speculative, though it is

pretty reasonable speculation.

114 Cite source, location of record?

115 “Also” implies in combination or comparison, with what?

116 This reads as though the logging and windthrow were done on

behalf the squirrels. Is this is what was intended?

Inconsistent use of units of measure.

The forest edge does not provide the proper microhabitat,

but middens occur in relatively dry sites -- including along

forest edges.

Cite source. Is there data to show that narrow roads or

small openings pose barriers to dispersal of red squirrels?

Inconsistent; these squirrels are also referred to as

Abert’s squirrels.

Cite source.

What do they do the rest of the year? This implies that

they only gather food in the winter.

112

136

93

1

137 1119

1 j120

123 j121

1 1122

117

118

10

110

ill

1

136
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

123 Cite source. On the Pinaleflo Mtns., some Abert’s squirrels

live year-round at higher elevations (even on “High Peak”),

where snow accumulation can exceed 3 meters. UA—RSMP

personnel have observed Abert’s squirrels during every month

138 of the year in spruce—fir habitat, they feed extensively on

the cambium of spruce trees, and have been observed taking

food (mushrooms and cones) from red squirrel midden sites.

(This may be cited as “P. Young, U of A, pers. comm.).

~24 “Severe” compared to what? Subjective wording. What “such 139 severe conditions”? The conditions are not described at

I all.

127 1125 Cite source.

126 The point of this sentence is not clear.

127 Wording is evasive, delete some qualifiers, make it more

definitive.

1

128 “Potential” development can not result in habitat loss.

Only actual development results in habitat loss.

Il29 How extensive is mushroom collecting on the Pinalefio Mtns?

127 I Is there any indication, or data, to show that this could be

a problem?

130 Explain what this means: is the population viable or not?

Was it not viable in the historical past? And if so, then

1how did it survive? Was it more viable before? This is a

very confusing statement, what is the “historical evidence”

used as a basis for the statement?

127 1131 What support exists for this speculation?

132 Inconsistent use of units of measure and designation of

habitat/vegetation types/associations/zones.

1

133 Conversion between SI and English units is not correct here,

and elsewhere in the document. Which elevation is it?

134 What roads were closed and how many? How does building

61 another new road help the red squirrel? add: “..new access

road to the astrophysical complex that was specifically

designed to minimize the impact on the red squirrel

population and replaced FR 507 and 669.”

j135 Why reforest red scruirrel habitat? Should this mean “to

1recover potential habitat”?

12.

137
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

Be specific. What construction is being monitored?

Construction of the visitor center, new camp ground, and

equestrian area is not being monitored.

Define “survival crisis”. What data are available to

support the claim of detrimental effects of forest

fragmentation on red squirrel populations? Cite sources.

701138 Cite source.

139 Redundant. By preventing further habitat loss,

fragmentation is already prevented. If this action is

imperative (“The most important...”), why are new

campgrounds and other recreational facilities being planned

and constructed? This paragraph states an absolute need to

protect even small pieces of habitat but does not seem to

match current management practice, which is expansion of

recreation sites. Define “suitable habitat”.

Appendix B does not refer to squirrel densities. The zone

designations in Appendix B are based on habitat structure.

Data regarding squirrel densities are not provided anywhere

in the document.

Define “Essential Habitat”.

What is the basis for the road closures? Where are the data

to support that road closures will benefit the squirrel

population?

Reduction in the probability of crown fires involves removal

of understory fuel and litter accumulation — perhaps by

controlled burns? What effect will the removal of the

understory and litter have on the red squirrel?

Are all unsuitable forests to be restored, or only those

with potential to become red squirrel habitat? Is there

information to suggest that reforestation is a viable action

in all areas?

What does this statement mean? It implies that priorities

have been made for something (not clear what), then lists

forest successional stages. What is the point?

It is not always necessary to know how something works, just

knowing that it does work is enough.

It is not clear ~j~ythis is necessary, or how it will

benefit the squirrel.

12

136

1

137

75

31

140

1

140 1141

141 j142

143

142

144

143

145

1

146

147

144

138
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

145

149

1

150

146 1151

152

147

148 1153

93 1154

155

1

157

158

149

159

1

160

150 j161

151 1162

1 ~l63

Define and describe what PVA is. Model based on estimated

population parameters and resource characteristics.

This is a repeat of the last paragraph. Reorganize to

delete duplication.

What does mitigation have to do with monitoring efforts?

Give examples of how mitigation could be achieved.

Shouldn’t a fire management plan be a part of this document

(Recovery Plan)?

It is not necessary to know everything before proceeding

with a recovery project. The knowledge currently available

should be used to initiate the plan, with adjustments made

as necessary.

What makes 100 years a manageable period of time? Has any

previous management plan ever endured for 100 years?

Repeats first paragraph on this page.

States information to produce a PVA is lacking, then

proceeds to produce one.

156 Should explain that PVA’s are based on computer simulation

and estimated parameters.

Reference is not listed in the Literature Cited.

Define “high” likelihood and “limited” latitude. Are there

specific probabilities or are they subjective? (Also

applies to subjective statements in the following three

paragraphs).

Footnote shows up in the middle of the next page.

How do the red squirrels expand their habitat? Should this

say “the population might expand into new areas”?

What is the reason for having different estimates of the

size of the habitats?

Explain why they shouldn’t be used for such a purpose.

Inconsistent habitat classification. New terminology

introduced here, but not defined.

13

139
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

Is USDA 1988 the review that is referred to? If not, then

the source should be cited. Is there a separate report on

this? If not, then include the review of the data in this

document.

153 ~165 List size of “unsuitable” habitat.

It isn’t clear where this 3560 ha is to come from. Is it

part of the 4710 ha of unsuitable habitat above, or

different areas? (167 This implies that midden sites move around, or else they

1 ‘ wouldn’t have to be tracked. Should this say “mapped”?

155 1168 There are no squirrel density estimates in this document.

169

156

1170

157

Evasive wording; there either is an estimate of carrying

~capacity or there isn’t. What is the basis for using midden

site density to estimate carrying capacity? Source?

Shouldn’t food resources be a part of this equation?

Evasive wording. Why does this section use squirrel

densities to predict future carrying capacity, when the

previous section used midden densities? Good to Excellent

habitat is finally defined here — based, apparently, only on

% canopy closure.

1 1171 This statement is not clear. What is “expected fair quality

158 ~172

173

159

174

160

Cite source.

This sentence is not clear. What are “multi—year irregular

cycles”? Cycles implies regularity. Does wide variations

in production refer to individual species or to the com1~ned

cone crop?

This paragraph is highly speculative. Table 3 shows an

increase of 30% in 1990, concurrent with the good cone crop

in that ye~.r, and a further increase over—winter. The

populatior. increased even more in 1991, without the benefit

of a good cone crop.

175 Be more specific. What is “great expansion”? This

paragraph starts by discussing food resources, then implies

that habitat improvement is imperative for the survival of

the sub—species. Based on the rest of the paragraph, this

statement should refer to reducing the variability of tlle

food resource.

14

164

152

154 166

1

140
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

161 1176 This statement implies that conifer species are segregated I into monotypic stands. Is this what was intended?

1177 Speculation only. Is there any evidence to support such a 127 scenario? If so, cite source.

178 Is this based on population dynamics modelling? If so cite

source. What are “small” amounts of variation, and in what

162 “factors”? What are “large” fluctuations in population

growth rate? Annual variation in growth rates are normal

for small mammal populations, and do not imply an unhealthy

population.

179 This discussion is rambling, repetitive, and verbose. It

should be condensed and reorganized to be more readable. 127 Subjective terms, such as “greatly”, “large” and “small”

should be replaced by more precise figures or estimates, or

the speculative nature of the conclusions should be made

clear.

163 jiBo Replace subjective qualifiers.

— 1 j181 Lower than what?

164 1182 If this happens, then hy definition the population is going

extinct.

165 1183 The Literature Cited section does not indicate where this

I reference is in press. Include publisher or journal.

184 Delete jargon or define what “bottlenecked” and “homozygous”

mean.

185 Explain N~ more fully; is it the number of breeding

individuals as stated, or the number of breeding females as

implied. Cite source for derivation of N~=0.5. Cite

sources of data used to calculate N~. Re—write without

using jargon.

186 Inconsistent reference to Sciurus aberti. “Tassel—eared

squirrel” is used previously.

187 Delete “spatial”; habitat is spatial in nature.

188 Seems very non-committal in light of the fact that the

166 tassel—eared squirrel is introduced. What is “significant”

competition? If the tassel-eared squirrel is a competitive

15

141
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

threat to the red squirrel, shouldn’t efforts be made to

remove or reduce their population?

189 Implies that the role of disease in the regulation of red

1 squirrel populations has been investigated. If so, cite

source, if not, reword to remove implication.

1190 Cite source of information on the impact of fire on red lS8i squirrel habitat.

1191 Is this a realistic response time considering the use of 1671 smoke jumpers, helitack crews, or aerial fire retardant

drops?

192 Verbose and unsubstantiated. Cite source of fire risk in

1 different habitats. Inconsistent reference to habitat type

or zone.

193 Can’t this be documented more precisely than “probably”?

Cite source. How can 15,000 acres over 100 years be

168 extrapolated from 10,000 acres over 40 years? This also

infers that burned areas do not recover. Inconsistent use

of units of measure.

93j194 Redundant.

127 j195 Inconsistent reference to habitat types. Is there any

authoritative source for this information?

163 1196 Verbose and redundant.

1 1197 Carrying capacity is not static; it varies through time with

the available resources, such as food supply.

127 j198 Cite source. Potential for another ice age? Effect of

continental drift? Volcanic activity?

199 Estimated maximum carrying capacity is based on habitat

169 composition and number of known middens. Food resources

should be incorporated as well as known distribution of

scruirrels

.

200 Risk of what? This is not clear. Paragraph mentions no

risk, so what is being increased?

1

201 Is this the same as carrying capacity?

16

142
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

202 Is this a personal opinion, or is it based on an analysis of

J63 some data base? Why wasn’t this referred to in earlier

treatment of PVA?

203 The entire summary and conclusion section uses evasive

wording. Conclusions must be more specific if the Recovery

Plan is to be useful.

170 j204 It is not clear why the critical nature of habitat to the

I red squirrel requires the designation of management zones.

1401205 Define “essential” habitat.

1 j20 6 Does this plan exist? If not, why is it not included for

development in this section?

171 j207 Define “re—population” habitat.

172 j208 Define “management flexibility”. Is this a separate

component of management?

09 It would be more appropriate to include PVA in the

163 research. “management” section. It is a management tool, not

j210 This is more appropriate under management.

31 j2ll This section develops many things, but implements nothing.

1 1212 Immigration of habitat? Paragraph is awkward, verbose, and

makes no clear statement.

1731213 What other measures; list them.

174 1214 “Essential habitat” is not defined in this document; neither

I is “critical habitat’1.

215 How will designating management zones help stabilize the red

170 I squirrel population, and why is such designation

I “essential”?

1216 This implies that current habitat does not provide security

1 I for the red squirrel population, and only recovered habitat

will do so. Is this what was intended?

1217 Schedule for implementation? The sentence becomes

31 j nonsensical by the use of “action(s)” twice.

17

143
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan —.

1218 Why only “monitor seedling growth rates and [e)ffects of

175 thinning”? Thinning is not previously mentioned. What is

I the objective of thinning?

219 What is the objective of the proposed “quantitative habitat

176 asse~sment”? The rest of the paragraph implies that a

fore~: type map is all that is needed.

220 What is the objective of this statement? There are a

variety of GIS formats; it is not one system as implied

.31 here The plan does not call for the collection or

com~ .~lation of data for a GIS system. Use of a GIS system

appears to be an afterthought.

221 What is the time frame for “regular” monitoring? Why only

monitor occupied habitats?

222 Of what will such monitoring consist? What are the specific

goals or objectives?

I223 This section does not include any manacrement, only 1 I monitorincr of the squirrel population and midden sites.

1224 The title, “Monitoring” plan, implies that monitoring is

177 included. It isr clear why it is essential that

I monitoring be done by more than one agency.

1225 At what point will the monitoring be discontinued; at what

31 I point will the population be increased and stabilized?

1 1226 Previously new middens.surveyed There areas is -~consistent should be re—surveyed reference totomidden locate

sites — now these are r~erred to as “food caches”.

227 What are the objectives of this evaluation? Is it to be

used to alter or adjust reforestation techniques? How often

is “regularly”?

31

228 What are the objectives of this section? Is this to be used

to implement supplemental feeding?

1 1229 Road it? kill Will the is notusediscussed of shuttlesin this applydocument. to ~ useHowof the serious is

I mountain?

230 How does the suppression of fires fit in with the reduction

31 of the potential for catastrophic fire? Are controlled

burns not considered?

18

144
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

231 Nonsensical sentence.

232 What is “the stabilization process” and what has been

“successfully” stabilized? Any management team for Mt.

1Graham red squirrel recovery should include personnel with

experience and expertise in squirrel management.

233 List specifically what data are needed. When are these

31 likely to be obtained? Will the time frame for collecting

these data allow their use in implementing the recovery

plan?

1 [234 Inconsistent reference to forest association/type/zone.

235 How will this information affect the “stabilization” plan,

which centers around protecting already identified “good to

31 excellent” habitat? What can be done with this knowledge?

How will knowing reproductive parameters influence the plan?

236 Population studies typically use the safest methods for

trapping and handling the subject animals; to do otherwise

jeopardizes the study. The methods used are determined by

the objectives of the study.

1237 Productivity of the habitat, or the squirrels? It isn’t

1clear. Life history includes much more than “productivity”.

163 j238 Verbose and redundant.

1239 Expand to explain how “improved” PVA’s wi~.l be used, and

31 include the objectives of genetic studies.

1240 This paragraph makes no mention of midden characteristics.

178 1 Didn’t Mannan and Smith (1991) describe midden

characteristics?

241 The objectives are vague: to determine the level of

31 interspecific competition between tassel—eared squirrels and

red squirrels, particularly concerning habitat partitioning

and food resources? Again, inconsistent common name

reference to Sciurus aberti. The currently accepted common

name is Abert’s squirrel (Jones, et al. 1992. Revised

checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico. 0cc.

Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, 146:1—23)

1242 The only habitat mentioned where tassel—eared squirrels are

1currently found, and red squirrels are not, is ponderosa

19

145
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

pine. This habitat falls into Zone 6, which indicates that

it is not to be managed for red squirrels.

243

31

244

The critical low number should be specified, or else there

is no objective for this section.

Supplemental feeding should be considered as a management

tool for increasing the population, not as a last resort.

j245 Delete “wild”, it is unnecessary as the entire population is

179 I free—ranging.

1246

163

1247

180

Wording is not to the point; we suggest: Captive breeding

techniques need to be developed now to insure success should

this be determined to be necessary in the future.

The only catastrophe discussed is fire. Either suggest

other potential catastrophes, or include this section in

management.

248 Education efforts might raise public awareness but may not

necessarily increase public su~ort

.

249 These should be implemented as well.

250 The use of inexperienced volunteers for monitoring could

jeopardize the quality of the data collected. The use of

volunteers should be limited and supervised.

251 Visitor Center is already operational.

181 1252

253

165

254

163 I

1255

Redundant; signs already included in section 312.

As indicated above, “in Press” implies that the manuscript

has already been accepted for publication. The journal or

publisher should be identified to facilitate retrieval when

it is finally published.

Redundant: extinction = declining irreversibly.

Define “significant”.

133 j256 Recovery requirements are not defined in this document.

1257 Reference is not listed in Literature Cited. There is no

1 Literature Cited for Appendix B.

163 1258 Redundant. By definition, forest canopy is “overhead”.

20

I

146
Young and Sanderson — Comments on Recovery Plan

11259 10 to 15 snags/ha = 4 to 6 snags/acre (not 406/ac).

260 Entire paragraph is poorly referenced. Good, poor, fair

182 habitat not defined (only excellent is). Good to excellent

habitat was earlier defined as having =60% canopy closure;

this seems inconsistent with this definition.

1261 The red squirrels’ requirements are not likely to be

1 j modified by further research; our understanding and

definition of them might change.

262 From the map, it appears that Zone 1 is defined on the basis

of elevation and possibly on midden density. How do red

183 scruirrel densities correlate with elevation and midden

density? What criteria were used to determine densities of

middens? How were boundaries between zones determined?

“High” densities is subjective, what are the specific

criteria used to designate zones. Sensitivity to “direct”

and “indirect” disturbances are mentioned for Zone 1, but

not for subsequent Zones. What is the source for

determining sensitivity to disturbance? Again, midden

densities are an inappropriate substitute for actual

squirrel densities.

1263 What is the basis for this statement? What is the source

184 for information on dispersal?

264 The Map shows some areas of existing human developments

185 (Columbine Work Center, campgrounds, Turkey Flats are

cabins) designated as Zone 7, but does not show other

existing developed areas (Columbine sunmer homes, Bible

camp, Heliograph Peak communications complex, Mt. Graham

Observatory). Why are some developed areas considered

while others are ignored?

21

147
MEMORANDUM

September 15, 1992

TO: Sam F. Spiller _ :11

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service zest g ~

FROM: Dr. Roger Angel, ERS A7f/L~’

2730 B 9th St

Tucson, Arizona 85716

RE: Comments on the draft recovery plan for the Mt. Graham red squirrel

1. 1 agree with your proposal to reopen Mt. Graham to the public:. This makes good sense,

10 given that most squirrels live outside the “refugium”.

2. The Draft Recovery Plan reads like some ideas on how to write a plan, rather than a

plan itself. I am amazed that the results of so much money spent on squirrel studies over

the past ten years could not have been put together to make a scientifically based plan. For

example, we are told that a population viability analysisis essential to predictshort and long

term persistence of the species. This sounds fine, it would be great to see a plan based on

such an analysis. Instead, the few specifics of the plan seem to be points of dogma, rather

than of reasoning.

186 Another example - short term contingency plans, on page 45. No plan is given at all, only

urgings that plans, guidelines, procedures and a plan outlining strategies to be implemented

be prepared.

In my career as a scientist I have written over 200 scientific papers, and reviewed hundreds

ofpapers and grant proposals. In my field, the expenditure of this much public money could

never be justified on such thin material.

148
-/ SEP 151991

L

~FcU~j. -~ ~t

AWt ,~ ,~ ~

cL6’i ‘~e j~

eA~e(-~.d§ q’~OQ,.5

187 ~rei~a~ -/Y~c~se e4Jhc ke~~- ~

-c

6O7~ 7~e- 1?~c~eiy

,iie. ~

/

~ ~S~4~-

.7Lf{. ,4// ~JJ

I

I

149
dY,

-i&J

Sept. 14,1992

OFFICERS

Charles J. Babbitt

President

Dick Todd

Vice President

Atison McGowen

Secretary

Herbert S. Fibel

Treasurer

COMMITTEE

CHAIRMEN

Rooert Witzeman. M.D.

Conservation

Harvey Beatty

Field Trips

Elaine Mayer

Programs

Elizabeth N. Hatcher

Membership

Marian Eubanks

Education

Anthony B. AnthOny

Publicity

Ken Sin,th

Editor

4

Sam Spillar, Field Supervisor, USFWS

3616 W. Thomas, #6

Phoenix AZ 85019 Additional Preliminary comments: Draft Recov. Plan MGRS

Dear Mr. Spillar:

Upon approval of the Draft Recovery Plan there must be financing for the team to carr,

out implementation of these otherwise wasted suggestions. Please let us know how_w~

can insure that the people of this country can best facilitate implementation fine

Dedicated line item allocations for the peregrine and condor have been em~

previously. Without implementation financing one can abandon hope for the survivai 0

this species in its tormented, abused habitat.

Regarding your report’s comment that the population may stabilize in 10 years, and take

at least 100 years to restore habitat: we ask: are there other studies than Mannan an

Smith that we are not aware of that give midden, canopy, overhead foliage density an

downed log old-growth parameters? We are aware of Patten’s and Grissino Mayer’s dat

showing boring data but these do not evaluate midden requirements etc.

Mannan and Smith state that: “230 yrs. and maybe as great as 290 years” are required tregenerate spruce-fir habitat. They say that in transition communities there may be “up I

260 years.” They say their estimates may be conservative because they do not:

“include in our calculations time needed to establish seedling trees, although th

could be reduced by planting young trees. Second, trees with the largest dbh ma~

not always be the oldest trees around middens. And third, dominant trees fro:

which we could not obtain core samples - i.e. those with heart rot - often wer.

among the largest trees we encountered and would likely have increased the mear

age of dominant trees at midden and random sites.”

As the public becomes more aware of saving those last fragments of old-growth d

nation, there is a developing body of literature saying 500 years or 1000 years or longE

DEDICATED TO THE PROTECTION OF NATURAL WETLANDS IN AN ARID ENVIRONMENT

1/

a

,...- -.-

-“‘S. -

N—

/7

— X.7. ~ — —~—• —

-. ~. -

-5-—

klvl

4619 EAST ARCADIA LANE . PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018

150
nay be needed to create these relict forest ecological storehouses of biodiversity. Barry

Spicer (pers comm) has stated that the south-facing midden-producing ecosystems on Mt.

~rahammay require more than 250 to 500 years and may never recover in the

roreseeable future. This is the southernmost boreal forest in N. American facing the

riarshest, driest latitude and humidity and solar azimuth.

The USFS has said that 23 million Pinaleno board feet were removed between 1890 and

1946; and 27 million between 1963 and 1972.

Average the logging between 1890 and 1946 to year 1918 (84 yrs. ago) and Mannon’s

regeneration time to 260 years. Then, expect the most optimistic midden habitat return in

186 (260-84) years if you ignore Mannan’s qualifiers. For those logged areas cut

between ‘63 and ‘72 (avg. 1968) conclude 260 minus 25 years or 235 years. Since the

Endangered Species Act gives the species the benefit of the doubt by law we don’t know

what the basis was for using the 100 year figure. We are equally unwilling to accept the

unwarranted optimism of page 35 — talking about a carrying capacity of 900 squirrels long

term and 650 individuals short term.

~ And since there was hardly any logging in the Spruce-Fir, and less in transition than in

mixed conifer, the requirements for regeneration time in these lower altitude drier, lower

altitude less productive logged habitats. heavily logged forests would be assumed to be

greater for creating suitable humid canopies and environments. We are well into

centuries, not 100 years.

Could you please describe and/or map the areas where you believe regeneration will

occur within 100 years on a map? Please provide the forest type, exposure, slope and

altitude? The zone map in the recov. plan is almost impossible to read and understand

because of its reduced size.

How much of the above mentioned historical logging occurred in mixed conifer, and how

much in so called transition (Doug fir, Engleman, Corkbarkl) ecotonal areas, and how

much in pure Engleman-Corkbark? Would you conclude the regeneration time would be

different for each of these habitats? Which zones offer the most promise for

regeneration?

Of the 2,500? acres burned per decade in the past four decades, what life zones and tree

species is the recovery draft referring to? How much of what burned was in good, fair,

188 poor, or excellent squirrel habitat? None of it was in spruce-fir since there has not

apparently been fire there for some 300 years. How much of the fire was in mixed

conifer? What is the fire cycle incidence in spruce-fir, ecotone, mixed conifer, transition,

and pine-oak chaparral? Is it correct to assume approximate spruce-fir fire cycles of 200

years, and ten year cycles in mixed conifer?

This may have management considerations for explaining the importance of spruce-fir in

the long term survival of the spruce squirrel. The campaign of the University of Arizona to

2

151
deny and belittle the longterm role of the spruce-fir in squirrel survival is an attempt to

justify the destruction of that very small 400-600 acre ecosystem. Hoffmeister said:

“Some time in the not too distant past red squirrels must have been present on

other mountain ranges in southeastern Arizona—Chiricahuas, Santa Catalinas,

Huachucas—and they may have been most closely related to those in the

Grahams.”

We would like to compliment the draft report for concluding that no more habitat

disturbance should occur in management zones one and two. This must remain a key 10 portion of the recovery plan if this species is to survive the battering and fragmentation

and subdivision and fenestration its key boreal habitat has received recently.

How many acres of zones one and two have been commercially logged — or deforested

for other reasons? How many deforested acres are there involving 507 and 669? What

are the plans for that rehabilitation? How much has been rehabilitated to date and with

189 what success? How many years of follow up have there been for scoring planting survival

rates? We have heard glowing public relations statements about revegetation and

reforestation from the University of Arizona but we have not seen any supporting data.

The draft’s zone maps are very difficult to read. Dividing the map into at least four

separate maps and then using USGS overlays for the peaks, landmarks and trails,

streams and roads and for the altitudes would greatly help to make them more meaningful.

We find it difficult to comprehend and find zones 3,4, 5, 6, and 7 to see what habitat it is

they represent. There should also be a set of easy to ready maps of the life zones. The

good and excellent, fair and poor habitat markings in the maps of the BA were helpful.

26 The shadings on them were stippled or crosshatched in a confusing manner but today’s

computer technologies should pick a pattern that reproduces better on photocopy. There

should be squirrel midden locations on a separate set of maps. Without the midden site

data neither the public nor the team could comprehend the decision-making process.

The map on page two, fig. 1 is not a range map of red squirrel distribution. This is the

range map of the mixed conifer habitat in Arizona— a life zone which encompasses a

much lower altitudes than the red squirrel. If you will note the red squirrel distribution

dots or site records in Hoffmeister, it can be seen that the ‘spruce’ squirrels cluster close

190 to the boreal cores of the state, namely the Kaibab, Chuska, San Francisco,

Greer/Blue/Baldy, Pinaleno and Chiricahua areas (Hoffmeister incorrectly includes the

Chiricahuas for this forest type). Only the Mogollon rim area seems to depart from those

spruce-fir cores and that in is a few high areas of dense, moist forest above the rim at e.g.

Hutch Mountain and General Springs. The recovery plan spruce squirrel range map

should add the spruce-fir areas on the red squirrel range map. That squirrel range map

should perhaps be, as in Hoffmeister, based on real sitings, but certainly not the range

map of Arizona’s mixed conifer. The draft’s map gives the impression there is a massive

area and expanse of red squirrels in the Chuskas, Pinalenos, and Kaibab which is not true

and misleading to the public who is trying to learn geographic distribution of this species

in Arizona. The boreal map of Hoffmeister on page 30 shows the extreme scarcity of this

3

I52
forest type. If the Tucson optical industry had seen how little of this habitat type there is in

Arizona, and that it is at its southernmost U.S. limit in the Pinalenos, the species and its

forest habitat today might have been spared its recent fragmentation and subdivision.

This report does not tell the number of middens which have been abandoned and which

are no longer being counted. How many have disintegrated or been abandoned or lost

each year? Conversely, what is the total of active ones which have been found each

191 year? Are squirrels using or sharing more than one midden causing overcounting or

undercounting?

The Draft report is lacking on historic artificial revegetation data or discussion of it. The

1988 80 said that revegetation by UA transplanting and treeplanting teams would help to

offset the losses caused by UA chainsaws.

I. How many trees were transplanted or planted, and

2. What species and what ages (sizes) were they, and

3. Where were they planted? A map of the plantings would be easier than a description.

61 4. What was the survival rate? Were any transplanted on 507 or 669? Have other trees

been planted in the mixed conifer? by the USFS? on Webb? peak and/or elsewhere?

Please describe the location and the success rate and the number of trees and species

and the life zones involved?

We think the public is long overdue access to the refugium. Campers, hikers, hunters,

nature buffs do not cut trees and destroy canopy and build roads and cause year round

noise and disruption of wildlife in this remote area. Astronomers clearly do. This is one

of the most unique ancient forest ecosystems in the world. It is the southernmost forest of

its type in North America. Students of forestry, botanists, birdwatchers, all can marvel at

this small but priceless wonder. At only 480 to 615 acres of pure spruce-fir, this delicate,

diminutive boreal treasure will be a biological and evolutionary classroom for students

throughout Arizona and the nation. That the University of Arizona and the collaborators

were able to lobby and litigate their exemption from all applicable U.S. environmental and

cultural protection laws and then destroy and fragment major portions of this irreplaceable

ancient, relict forest gem is unthinkable. This boreal summit forest grove shall be a

monument to the arrogance of mankind and the hypocrisy of a Church.

10

Wood gathering, fire rings and ground disturbing activities would not be anticipated.

There are many areas in this nation where people must carry their own fuel stoves and

respect the forest and plant life for special reasons. The 200 year fire cycle of spruce-fir

suggests the area is surprisingly fire resistant so a prohibition of self-contained stoves

would seem inappropriate.

We find no problem with hunting and welcome these users of the outdoors. Deer and

bear and other game, and fishing, in season, should be allowable as they were

historically. The more citizens use and learn about this wondrous place, the more there

will be a cadre of citizens realizing this cannot become a city of telescopes above the law.

4

153
Overnight camping in this fragile, miniature, boreal classroom can be uniquely educational

lOj and inspirational. But less than inspirational to the outdoors nature observer, hunter or

hiker will be the noise and commotion of the astrophysical facility’s diesel generators,

construction crews, cement mixers, welding and jack hammering, blasting, truck backing

beepers, busses, maintenance vehicles, heliport, snowblowers, and the 8000 annual

astrotourists and astrotourist busses which UofA’s March 28, 1990 position paper boasts

they will attract.

The Maricopa Audubon Society would ask how many people visited the summit area

before and after UofA’s road grading of 507 in the mid 80’s? To reiterate: How many

visited the area when it was a very poor, essentially 4WD road compared to after it was

graded by UofA? These figures would be baseline data for the recovery plan to put in

192 perspective what hiker and astrotourist impacts might be in the summit use equation.

Regarding maintenance of summit trails: treefalls and windfalls should not be sawed in

half and relocated or disposed. Hikers should be capable of climbing over or walking

193 around the summit’s relatively small diameter Engleman-Corkbark trees. Trails can be

marked. These downed logs are an important part of the fragile, humidity-requiring

ecosystem. These rules will educate the public and encourage their respect for this very

small boreal gem— which is presently under piecemeal dismemberment by the UofA, and

foreign institutions of “higher” learning, and a Church.

The educational benefit of allowing the public to walk into this relict forest ecosystem is

immense. The thrill of being at the Hudsonian summit of a mountain having more life

zones than any other (solitary) U.S. mountain will be electrifying to many. None of

Arizona’s other “sky islands” possess a boreal summit. Imagine teaching the public about

10 passing through Lower Sonoran or Chihuahuan grassland or desertscrub to Oak woodland, to Oak Pine, to Transition, to Canadian, and finally climbing on foot to true

boreal or Hudsonian! This is the equivalent of a walk from the Mexican border to Alaska

in life zones and vegetative communities.

The discussion of artificial breeding broaches some complex philosophical areas and you

are to be commended for considering this important aspect of recovery plan options.

Where is the supplemental feeding data which was developed a few years back? Could

194 we please see it? What conclusions can be made from it pertaining to recovery?

Thank you for this opportunity to respond. We will be most appreciative of your replies

and response to our comments and questions.

Sincerely,

6~$dY~2~fr~ Robert A. Witzeman, M.D., Conservation Chairperson

Maricopa Audubon Society

5

154
TI-fE STATE ~‘ ~ OF ARIZONA

-‘S. V

9

GAME & FISH DEPARTMENT

2221 West Greenway Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 (602) 942-3000

Cisii’rrnnr

Fire Syminglon

Commissioners:

Gordon K. Whiting. Central. Chairman

Larry Taylot. Yums

Elizabeth T. Woodin. Tucson

Arthur Porter, Phoenix

Nonie Johnson, Snowflake

Director

Duane L Shroufe

Deputy Director

Thomas W. Spalding

November 2, 1992

Lesley A. Fitzpatrick

Ecological Services Field Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

3616 W. Thomas Road

Phoenix, Arizona 85019

Dear Lesley:

Enclosed are the Arizona Game and Fish Department review comments on the Mount Graham

Red Squirrel Draft Recovery Plan.

Sincerely,

CA/t,(O. k~=f=XYZ%b1⁄2%

Carl L. Russworm

Wildlife Specialist

:cr

Enc. Comments on MGRS Recovery Plan

An Equal Opportunity Agency

NOV -6 1992 Li

U.S. FISH & WILDUFE SERVICE

OFFICE - PHOENIX AZ

155
ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT

INTER-OFFICE MEMO

TO: Rich Glinski

Endotherms Supervisor

PROM: Dave Belitsky

Nongame Mammalogist

SUBJECT: Comments on MGRS Recovery Plan

DATE: September 15, 1992

I have reviewed the most recent draft of the MGRS Recovery Plan and

provide the following comments.

Under Assessment of Population Viability, paragraphs 11.3 and 111.2

are so speculative that they should be deleted. Both paragraphs are

preceded by predictive statements about the potential habitat and

MGRS population levels which satisfy the requirements of the

assessment. The recovery plan should not be used to predict

carrying capacities in excess of any known population estimates.

Especially when the predictions ignore all the resistance factors

195 identified in the historical review such as wildfire, drought,

blowdown, global warming and the fact that “the population has

remained below the estimated maximum carrying capacity”. On page

36, the last sentence in the first paragraph should be changed

accordingly.

In Appendix B, the habitat management recommendations assume a

single species approach. The statement “Many other species

dependent on, or living in, coniferous forests in the Pinalenos

will also benefit from these management methods” ignores the fact

196 that several high priority species which occur in the Pinalenos do

not utilize mature, old growth forest. For example, the white—

bellied vole (Mi crotus iongicaudus .leucophaeus) and the Pinalenos

pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae grahamensis), which are restricted

to the Pinalenos and associate with other habitat types.

In the Narrative Outline, under Interagency Cooperation (p. 44),

include the recently finalized collection agreement between the

1 Department and the Forest Service to share in the implementation of

the semi—annual red squirrel midden surveys. Also, suppiemental

feeding as a potential management strategy should be deleted from

this section because the effectiveness of the procedure, even under

emergency conditions, lacks support. The only attempt to implement

supplemental feeding was never evaluated. Captive breeding would be

197 the more likely procedure implemented in case of a catastrophic

emergency.

1992. 3 on p. 19 should include midden survey results from June,

156
Mes~o to Rich Glinaki September 15, 1992

Re~ MGP.S Recovery P:Lax~ Page 2

The footnote on p. 30 under Habitat Analysis should be formatted as

a footnote.

The citation on p. 28 (Marcot et al. 1988) is not included in the

1 Literature Cited section.

Page 22, para. 2, first sentence, “these” is misspelled.

Also, please cc:Gerhart.

DWB:ms

Enc.Recovery Plan, Comments on previous drafts.

157
Appendix E

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

1. Comments were incorporated into the plan.

2. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) requires the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to develop recovery plans for listed

threatened and endangered species. These plans identify actions that

should be taken to recovery the species. Estimates of the costs

associated with implementing these actions are also included in the

plan. The plan does not itself authorize or allocate any federal

funds to be spent. Implementation of any specific action requires

federal budgetary approval and appropriation.

3. Copies of the draft plan were sent to all the biologists mentioned

with the exception of Drs. Patton and Stromberg.

4. The FWS does not disagree with the data presented. The time required

for recovery of red squirrel habitat (forest regrowth) varies greatly

depending upon the aspect, elevation, soil type tree species involved

and the residual site conditions. Not all currently degraded

habitats are devoid of trees. In fact, much of the area that is

anticipated to recover to suitable condition is currently in a

forested condition, often in a post, pole or early mature growth

stage. Such areas may become suitable habitat in a comparatively

short time. Areas largely devoid of trees are likely to take longer

than 100 years to recover. The term “at least 100 years” used in the

plan is used to convey that red squirrel habitat recovery is a long

term proposition but not one that will show no benefits for 200 to

300 years.

5. Once the recovery plan is adopted by the FWS, development of a

coordinated approach to research can be considered.

6. The term “stabilize’ in this context refers to recovery efforts for

species whose current situation does not allow for true recovery to

occur. These species are seen to be at high risk of extinction in

the short term and declines in population or habitat are likely to

continue. The wide fluctuations in population numbers characteristic

of the red squirrel contributes to its vulnerability. The intent is

to increase the habitat base, and thus the potential population to

better accommodate the natural fluctuations. As information is

obtained through plan implementation, population target levels are

likely to be adjusted.

7. Potential dispersal corridors are largely protected under the zone

concept. Where possible, zone 1 and zone 2 habitats have a land

connection. Sufficient information on the metapopulation structure

and degree of isolation is not available. Future research will

provide information on dispersal. The FWS recognizes that species

with small, isolated subpopulations are more at risk when dispersal

habitats are reduced.

8. Some information from monitoring of trial supplemental feeding is

available for the species. This information will be evaluated to

determine feasibility and research needs for supplemental feeding.

This need is recognized in the stabilization objectives.

9. The implementation schedule currently calls for four years of

population dynamics/life history study. Additional efforts in this

area will be pursued as appropriate.

158
10. Your support for this action is noted.

11. The draft recovery plan was available for public comment for 60 days.

A notice of availability was published in newspapers in Safford,

Tucson and Phoenix. A news release was issued by the FWS Regional

Office in Albuquerque. Arizona newspapers did run stories on the

plan and its availability. These actions were taken to provide the

public with the opportunity to comment on the draft. All comments

received were reviewed and considered in the development of the final

plan.

12. Red squirrels experience significant population fluctuations.

Research has shown that food availability, which may be affected in

some ways by drought, is one driving force of these fluctuations.

The review of the literature on red squirrels throughout their range

does not indicate that disease is a major force driving fluctuations.

Continued observation of the population may provide additional

insights.

13. Reforestation and silvicultural activity is planned to continue

through the year 2000 at a total expenditure of $350,000.00 dollars.

14. Knowledge of population biology and habitat ecology is needed to

understand the characteristics habitats must have to be considered

restored. Protection of existing habitat is needed to maintain red

squirrel populations until degraded habitats are restored.

15. The recovery plan recommends that any recreation plan developed under

the zone concept include provisions to monitor day use and determine

if adverse effects are occurring. Additional restrictions would be

employed as necessary to protect red squirrels and their habitats.

16. The recovery plan zone concept recommends no additional loss of

habitat in zone 1.

17. The recovery plan zone concept allows pedestrian access to High Peak

and surrounding areas.

18. Road openings, while narrow, have considerable effect on the adjacent

forests. These edge effects may penetrate over 25 meters into the

forest, changing moisture and wind patterns. Windthrow becomes more

likely if susceptible trees are now on the edge of the forest.

Fragmentation of suitable habitat is another effect. Patches of

habitat created may not be as suitable due to size or edge effect

degradation. The Forest Service (USFS) prepared the road bed and

adjacent fuel breaks for natural regeneration in 1990. Restoring the

forest along FRSO7 will take time, but the gains are not

insignificant.

19. Seventy five percent of FR507 is in zones 1 and 2.

20. Vehicle access eventually will be available to Emerald Peak vicinity

via Steward Observatory shuttles. Pedestrian access would be

available under the zone concept to Emerald, Hawk, High and Plain

View Peaks.

21. Public education is an important part of any recreation plan

implemented in the Pinalenos.

22. All comments received during the public review period of July 15—

September 15, 1992 have been reviewed and changes made to the draft

recovery plan as appropriate. These comments have not resulted in

significant changes to the content or the direction of the final

recovery plan. All comments received are included as an appendix to

159
the final plan. Copies of the final plan will be sent to all those

who provided comments.

23. These recommendations were in the recovery plan.

24. The recovery plan recognizes the need to address captive breeding but

stresses the need to protect and restore habitats.

25. Habitat protection is adequately addressed in the body of the

recovery plan and the stabilization objectives.

26. The map has not been improved or enlarged. Detail at the level

requested is not feasible at this scale. Detailed maps are available

for view at FWS and USFS offices. The FWS feels the zcc~e

descriptions are adequate. If implementation identifi~ problem

issues, modifications will be considered.

27. A recovery plan outline was not prepared for this species. The red

squirrel was listed prior to this requirement being established.

28. The species status has been included in the Executive Summary. There

have been no Recovery Expenditure Reports for this species.

29. Species status is unknown. Recent significant population

fluctuations have made determination of actual population trend

difficult.

30. The Recovery Policy and Guidelines states that this information will

be contained in the recovery plan “to the maximum extent feasible.”

Information to set these goals and criteria is not available. Such

information will be obtained as part of the plan implementation. The

FWS has issued other recovery plans that do not contain many of these

same criteria. It is prudent to go forward with a plan in some form

to attempt to develop more specific information than to wait for such

information to be developed then prepare a plan. The FWS has made no

judgements about reclassification or delisting criteria.

31. These questions relate to development of specific project actions

under the oversight of the recovery plan. Answers to these questions

cannot be provided at this time.

32. This is a stabilization plan. The cost of this plan has been

estimated to be $2,016,200.00. Costs of recovery actions not in the

plan have not been estimated.

33. Interagency coordination under Sections 4, 7, and 9 is not at issue

in this recovery plan. Sections 4 and 9 have very little overlap

with recovery planning at this level. Section 7 consultation is

required for all recovery actions implemented. Issues directly

relating to section 7 consultation are r~t part of this plan.

34. Options and strategies for land protection as described in the Policy

and Guidelines are designed more for those situations where ownership

of species habitats is split among several entities. Non—federal

ownership of habitat is a concern here also. The zone concept is our

best design for habitat protection in this case where all the habitat

is owned by the USFS. The issues raised in this comment are beyond

the scope of the recovery plan but could be included in

implementation actions.

35. Priority descriptions in Part IV are the same as in the Policy and

Guidelines.

160
36. All implemented recovery actions require both section 7 consultation

under the Endangered Species Act and documentation under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). All public notifications under NEPA

apply. The visitor center at Columbine was covered under an

Environmental Assessment.

37. Terms have been more clearly defined in the text and the number of

terms used has been reduced. See also response #6.

38. The USFS model used to develop these figures uses 60 percent.

39. These specific studies would be developed under the research section

of the plan.

40. Figures for habitat acres and red squirrel numbers are based on the

best data currently available to the FWS. The origins of these

figures is referenced in the text of the plan. Implementation of the

plan actions will provide information to revise these figures.

41. The recovery plan is a planning document that provides direction to

develop the type of specific habitat protection/development plan

proposed. The recovery plan is not required to specify each item of

research that may be done under the broad headings provided.

42. Dogs are mentioned in the text. Monitoring of recreationists will

determine if management actions to further restrict dogs would be

needed. Placement of fences at recreation sites is an issue to be

addressed in USFS recreation management plans.

43. Decisions on population size indicator to be used in a specific

situation will be made as part of implementation.

44. Sample sizes of home range data are too small to make such

comparisons. Additional data would be collected during

implementation.

45. The extinction on West Peak is believed to have occurred. There is

no definite data to support any argument for or against the existence

of red squirrels on Webb Peak.

46. The FWS believes one squirrel per midden to be a widely accepted

standard. Wells (1987) in her dissertation found that midden sharing

was more likely to be among family members.

47. The SHE method of analysis was developed for use with site specific

data in the preparation of the Expanded Biological Assessment (USDA,

USFS 1988). Data at that level was not available for the rest of the

red squirrel habitat area. Recalibration of figures will be done

when additional information is available.

48. The footnote on page 9 has been modified. The reference on page 8 is

not squirrel based but midden based so there is no estimate of

population made. Record sheets on each known midden contain

information on midden status.

49. Surveys from the Pinalenos from 1985 to 1992 support the historic use

of middens. Filopatry is a recognized phenomena of red squirrels and

has been described in the recovery plan.

50. The F~S recognizes that red squirrels throughout their range have

different requirements for canopy closure. The Mt. Graham red

squirrel may be more selective of canopy closure to protect middens

from higher insolation in these southern latitudes.

161
51. Genice Froehlich’s work was in both Douglas—fir and spruce—fir

habitats.

52. Understory plants may be important where they are available,

especially raspberries and blueberries. High canopy closures found

at Mt. Graham red squirrel middens preclude the establishment of most

understory plants. Additional information on the importance of

understory plants will be developed during implementation.

53. Both Halvorson and Gurnell studies were referenced.

54. Mention of bones as a food item has been added. The possibility of

providing bones as a strategy to improve diets would be addressed as

part of explorations of supplemental feeding.

55. There is insufficient data to speculate further.

56. It is possible for over—winter mortality rates to be sufficiently low

so that population estimates do not detect the over—winter mortality.

It is also possible that dispersing individuals counted in the fall

survey may occupy middens during the winter and be counted in the

spring survey. This is speculative. Refinements of the population

monitoring program will likely undergo refinements.

57. “Estimate” is defined as “to determine roughly the size, extent, or

nature of” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1979, G & C Merriam

and Company). The use of the term in the plan is appropriate.

58. Footnote 1 should not be used for October 1991 figures in Table 3,

because a large number of newly created middens were not included.

59. Dr. Paul Young’s information applies to all three vegetation types

and was a generalization.

60. This discussion of Abert’s squirrel is given to provide the reader

insight into their potential role in red squirrel ecology.

Interspecific interactions are identified as a research need in the

plan.

61. This is not a recovery plan issue.

62. Essential habitat is a designation under USFS policy (Forest Service

Manual 2670.5) that provides protection equal to that given to

designated critical habitat. This provides additional recognition

for these areas in project planning. The FWS has no regulatory

authority over essential habitat designations.

63. The recovery plan represents the official position of the FWS. Once

the plan is finalized, it will be transmitted to the USFS. The USFS

may or may not implement any part of the plan. The FWS has no

enforcement authority. Interagency cooperation is the key to

successful implementation. This is recognized in the plan.

64. Consideration of dog control needs are incorporated in development of

management plans.

65. The statement “is promising” is qualified by the addition of “if

forest habitat is restored, maintained, and protected.”

66. Age of trees is not necessarily as critical as size. Size and other

structural attributes of red squirrel habitat have already been

researched and documented (Mannan and Smith 1991).

162
67. The need to develop a detailed monitoring plan is identified in the

plan.

68. The recovery plan defined continued existence as a population that

has a high probability (usually 95%) of existence for a time frame of

100 years or more.

69. A specific goal for a well-distributed population has not been

defined. In general terms, the Habitat Management Zone map conveys

the anticipated areas for development of a well distributed

population. West Peak will be evaluated for habitat potential during

implementation.

70. These statements are intended to be qualitative rather than

qualitative.

71. Sufficient information to create meaningful criteria are not

available.

72. Recovery plans are intended to estimate time frames for accomplishing

species recovery and estimating available habitat into the future is

an important component. There are numerous factors, both natural and

human related, that will influence the time needed to accomplish

recovery.

73. The recovery plan recognizes the HOM as being a maximum number under

optimal conditions. The total number of known middens tends to

corroborate the current habitat capability estimate of 650. The

recent revisions the HCM model runs (that produced the current

capability of 650 and the future capability of 900) took into account

the fact that densities of red squirrels across a landscape do not

approach maximum densities for a variety of reasons.

74. It is not reasonable to rank all risk factors as top priority. Lower

priority ranking does not mean the risk factor is not significant.

75. This is a summary statement. More details are included in the text

of the recovery plan.

76. Items 123 and 1231 have been added to the table. Designation of

essential habitat has recovery importance for the red squirrel. See

response #63.

77. Priority added for 1253. See response to #74

78. Revision of critical habitat boundaries could occur in the future if

listing priorities allow. Designation of essential habitat may be

more timely. See also response #62.

79. The GIS system enables the use of computer imagery for three

dimensional work and inclusion of data sets. Other methods of

graphically showing data will be considered.

80. No, it does not.

81. Interagency cooperation has achieved several goals, including halting

of timber sales and wood collection in red squirrel habitat,

continuation of the survey efforts, cone crop monitoring, and

experiments on supplemental feeding. The USFS, Arizona Game and Fish

Department (AGFD) and FWS provided support for staff members to

participate in the Recovery Team. Implementation of recovery plans

is always a good faith effort of all parties involved.

163
82. Productivity includes these measurements and others such as whelping

rates.

83. These numbers will be developed during implementation.

84. Types of emergencies considered are described in the plan.

85. Management of cienegas is intended to be left to natural processes

and cycles.

86. As described, zone 7 habitats are areas of human development.

Decisions on the future of these areas are beyond the scope of the

recovery plan.

87. The listing of the Mt. Graham red squirrel was made on the basis of

the best biological data available. That data clearly showed the red

squirrel had lost considerable habitat due to human activities, a

potential competitor had been introduced, and significant

fluctuations in population were likely bringing red squirrel numbers

down to very low levels. The status survey work on the red squirrel

was initiated by AGFD for the FWS before the telescopes became an

issue.

88. Survey information and specific data on midden locations show that

closed canopy forests with snags and extensive areas of downed timber

are preferred habitats for red squirrels in the Pinalenos (Mannan and

Smith, 1991). Corkbark fir is an important species for red squirrel,

producing large cones with many seeds.

89. Recommendations for implementation of specific actions in the plan

will be available for use as those actions are developed.

90. All future use restrictions will be based on the results of

monitoring studies and would be implemented only if needed.

91. The stabilization goal of 300 adult red squirrels at population lows

is a preliminary estimate of desirable population size. There is no

time period to achieve or maintain this goal given in the plan

because sufficient information is not available to set these

criteria. As the plan actions dealing with population are

implemented, information to answer these questions will be developed.

92. The typical size of a red squirrel midden in the Pinalenos is 0.031

hectare. For fallen trees, the distance around the log is measured.

Since breast height on a fallen log is not known, DBH cannot be used.

93. The FWS retains the original wording.

94. Development of a long—term monitoring program under the recovery plan

will address this issue.

95. Mannan and Smith (1991) have provided considerable baseline

information on red squirrel habitat. Other issues such as cone

crops, availability of other food resources in the habitat, and

effects of other species on the habitat parameters remain unclear.

96. Two pamphlets are mentioned to deal with the needs of two different

groups. The general public is not likely to be as interested in the

specific research or biological information that a school biology

program could use. Similarly, the school does not need basic

information on what middens look like, proper behavior at middens and

so on.

164
97. Decisions on specific roads to be reforested will be developed during

implementation.

98. The recovery plan recognizes the natural causes of red squirrel

population fluctuations. The human developments and disturbances in

red squirrel habitat that have removed or degraded the forest have

resulted in a lower habitat capability. Thus, fewer total squirrels

can be supported in the overall area. Natural population

fluctuations are significant. The loss of habitat capability may or

may not have a direct influence on the magnitude of the fluctuations.

Even without any influence from the change in habitat, if the total

population is lower, and the magnitude of fluctuation is the same as

under natural conditions, the real numbers of animals remaining at

the low point of the fluctuation is lower than would be expected

under natural conditions. Numbers may be low enough to cause a

significant increase in extinction risks. With this information, it

is clear that maintaining low point population levels as high as

possible is critical to survival. This requires that population

highs be as high as possible. The maximum size of an animal

population is controlled by several factors. Perhaps the most

important is the amount of habitat available. Habitat capability is

a measure of habitat available. Reductions in habitat capability

reduce the maximum size of the population that can be supported.

Population lows are lower as a result. This scenario assumes that

the habitat loss or degradation has not had an effect on the

magnitude of fluctuations. If availability of food resources is

driving the fluctuations, any change to the habitat that directly or

indirectly reduces the capacity of the remaining habitat to produce

food likely will affect the magnitude of fluctuations. Habitat

capability cannot be separated from food resource production or

population levels.

99. The best available biology is the only information used in the

development of the recovery plan. Provision is made for reevaluation of approaches and actions contained in plans as additional

information is developed. Technical comment is solicited to ensure

the information is sound, and the best approaches to the problems are

identified. Where information is lacking, extra precautions against

adverse effects must be taken. There is no place for trade—offs in

the recovery plan. It is meant to present the program that in the

best of all possible worlds would be implemented to recovery the

species.

100. Additional information developed since the preparation of the

biological opinion for the Mt. Graham International Observatory

(MGIO) has shown that the transition and mixed conifer forests are

important red squirrel habitat. This does not change the fact that

spruce—fir habitats are important to the red squirrel. The USFS

surveys include areas of suitable habitat between 8000 and 9000 feet.

Surveys have been completed in 4058 hectares of the suitable habitat

available. Approximately 620 hectares of suitable habitat remain

unsurveyed. Most of this is poor quality habitat. In completed

surveys, poor quality habitat had fewer middens than better quality

habitats. Thus, it is not possible to assume that 15% of all middens

have not been found if only 85% of the habitat has been surveyed.

Since each survey took place in a range of habitat qualities, it is

not impossible for the average of middens per hectare to be similar.

This survey information has been used in the preparation of the

recovery plan. For specific questions on the surveys, please contact

the USFS directly.

101. The FWS believes that the criteria used to determine suitable habitat

are reasonable and are supported by recent studies (Mannan and Smith,

1991). The figures used in the plan for hectares of habitat are not

165
underestimated by 50%. As maps of the habitat improve, the

information on habitat quality will be used in implementation of the

plan.

102. The recovery plan recognizes the importance of all forest types

(spruce—fir, transition and mixed conifer) to the long—term survival

of the red squirrel. We have been observing the red squirrel in the

Pinalenos for less than ten years. We have been seriously studying

the habitat values and potentials for even less. There is

insufficient information to support your conclusions on the

importance of spruce—fir to the red squirrel.

103. The USFS is developing a fire management plan for the Pinalenos that

will provide protection for all forest types. Population relocations

will be addressed under task 1253.

104. Predators and predation levels will be addressed in implementation.

105. The USFS reforestation plan will deal with these issues.

106. Available biological information does not support such sweeping

statements and conclusions. Studies on dispersal will provide

biological information to answer these points.

107. Studies on the interrelationships between red squirrels and Abert’s

squirrels are covered under task 2141 in the recovery plan. There is

not sufficient biological information to support such sweeping

statements and conclusions.

108. The recovery plan uses “catastrophe” to describe events that

eliminate significant portions of the available habitat of the red

squirrel. Major fires and long—term droughts are specifically

mentioned. The FWS must look at events or conditions that may

preclude recovery of the species. Restoration of some forested areas

may take 200 to 300 or more years. If global warming is occurring

and continues, then there may be effects to the forests of the

Pinalenos. We recognize there is little we can do about global

warming, but it has a reasonable probability of occurring so should

be mentioned.

109. The Arizona—Idaho Conservation Act of 1988 mandated the use

restrictions currently in force in the Pinalenos. The recovery plan

does recommend a loosening of some of those restrictions.

110. The recovery plan is an advisory planning document to direct agency

efforts to recovery the species. The presence of the MGIO on Emerald

Peak is noted. Any expansion beyond the current project will require

both NEPA and ESA-Section 7 cons~.ltation. The recovery plan does not

interfere with any part of the Arizona—Idaho Conservation Act of

1988.

111. Decisions on restoration, fires management and needs of other species

will be addressed during the implementation period.

112. This plan has as its objective stabilizing the red squirrel

population. Specific requirements for recovery will be developed as

information is obtained. The issue of time to habitat recovery is

addressed in response 41. Any valid comparisons with red squirrels

elsewhere will be part of implementation.

113. Density date is from 1990 USFS unpublished data. Density

calculations do include some areas of unsuitable habitat such as

meadows and cienegas. The University of Arizona densities are based

166
on study areas with artificially created boundaries that are not

necessarily reflective of the larger areas used in the plan.

114. Froehlich (1990) documented the use of more than one midden by a

single red squirrel and more than one red squirrel using a single

midden. These occurrences, based on other studies (Smith, C.C. 1968;

Vahle 1978) are rare and are likely exceptional cases.

115. This figure is meant to show the general distribution of red

squirrels in the Pinalenos. The black dots show the general pattern

of midden distribution.

116. To date, no Mt. Graham red squirrel middens have been found in pure

ponderosa pine stands. We have no quantification of the amount of

this forest type surveyed to date. We do not know why Mt. Graham red

squirrels do not use ponderosa pine, but we speculate on the reasons

in the section on Distribution.

117. Coronado National Forest files, Tucson and Safford, Arizona

118. The Forest Service plans to resurvey “no potential” habitat every

five years. The next such survey is planned for 1993.

119. Yes, areas have been walked through but not systematically

inventoried.

120. The USFS based the analysis strictly on forest structural stage and

assumed that food resources will, to a large extent, be provided by

mature forest conditions.

121. We chose to display midden data by both habitat and elevation.

122. Newly located middens might be newly created or newly discovered.

Many times it is difficult to determine which is the case.

123. The source is cited adequately. Please refer directly to source for

additional information.

124. This speculation is based on observations from the Pinalenos.

125. Because latitude influences vegetation associations present and thus

the distribution of habitat, this discussion is in the appropriate

section.

126. This specific information is not available.

127. The use of the word “may” implies that this is speculation.

128. Froehlich (1990) was the only data available. Data from your

monitoring has not been made available for use in this document.

129. No mention of reduction of habitat by any causes is made on the page

mentioned. This paragraph asserts that some habitat has been

degraded and that further degrading of habitat by development will

reduce the number of potential middens.

130. For the summary of information presented in this document, use of

USDA, Forest Service 1988 in the citation is adequate.

131. It is not relevant to compare proportions because of wide variation

and lack of evidence of correlation to population under discussion.

132. These statements point out that current and future research will help

clarify some of the unknowns •in the plan.

167
133. The recommended detail is beyond the scope of this plan.

134. The fall 1990 survey was unusual in that it appeared that young red

squirrels were creating small middens very close to other, more

established, middens. The survey leaders determined to arbitrarily

delete the 40 middens due to questions about occupancy of the new and

established middens by the same or different red squirrels. Each of

the 40 locations was revisited in the spring of 1991, and if still

visible as a separate midden, was added to the midden data base.

135. Cone crop reports are in the files of the Coronado National Forest.

136. The decline in population estimates between 1986 and 1987 are

believed related to a failure of the Englemann spruce cone crop.

There are, however, no quantitative data were collected.

137. This sentence does not mention narrow roads or small openings. It is

speculation that sot-ne isolation “may” have occurred via fragmentation

of the forest from several sources, including fires, that degraded

large areas.

138. Source is Brown 1984. This paragraph speaks on general terms about

differences between Abert’s squirrels and red squirrels. Given the

proximity of high elevations to more “usual” Abert’s squirrel

habitat, it is not surprising the Abert’s are seen at higher

elevations. Thank you for providing this information.

139. In this example, severe implies greater snow cover and colder

temperatures over a longer periods of time than in a mild winter

area.

140. Essential habitat is defined in the Forest Service Manual 2670.5 as

habitat possessing the same characteristics as critical habitat. See

also response #62.

141. Road and area closures provide opportunities to control access while

effects of human use on red squirrels and red squirrel habitat are

evaluated.

142. Management to reduce habitat destroying fires may involve removal of

some understory fuel and litter. It is not known what effect such

actions will have on the red squirrel population. Efforts will need

to be planned for small test areas and monitored for several years

before any large scale efforts are undertaken. Several types of

fuels management are likely to be tested.

143. Potential red squirrel habitat will be restored. Some areas, such as

old clearcuts on south facing slopes, will require longer to

regenerate than others and may not be suitable for planting. All

degraded habitat areas will be analyzed by silviculturists as part of

the reforestation plan.

144. Classification and inventory of forest stands is an essential step in

developing a reforestation plan.

145. A Population Viability Analysis (PVA) is a statistical model based on

estimated or known population parameters and resource characteristics

that predicts the probabilities of short and long—term persistence of

the population.

146. Specific plans to be completed by other agencies are listed in the

implementation schedule.

168
147. The Recovery Plan contains on the ground actions that should be

initiated immediately. Some projects must await a specific plan

development prior to implementation, in order that resources be

properly utilized in implementation. Research allows fine tuning of

specific actions or plans over the life of the Recovery Plan.

148. Because the recovery and reforestation efforts are considered long—

term projects, planning to accomplish them must also look at the

long—term. All planning for actions beyond a very few years in the

future has the same uncertainty for accomplishment.

149. All terms are subjective.

150. Estimates were based on the most current knowledge of red squirrel

presence and of habitat considered suitable or potential. This

information is available in the Coronado National Forest files.

151. Area estimates used in the plan are not refined enough to be used for

detailed analysis of small areas.

152. Reviewing of data consists of remeasuring areas on maps and other

calculations are part of implementation and thus do not need to be

specifically discussed in the plan. For example, some areas

previously considered poor habitats have recently (1990—1992) been

inventoried and reevaluated based on updated aerial photography.

This is important information for implementation but does not require

inclusion in the plan. All area figures given in the plan are

estimates based on grid overlays.

153. The calculation of habitats as currently unsuitable and with no

potential are lumped together until further analysis by

silviculturists can segregate the acreages of each.

154. Part of the fair to poor habitat is from areas, such as small

clearcuts, scattered among currently occupied habitats and part is

from areas naturally regenerating from fires. Most estimates were

generated from computer models of succession. Data is in the

Coronado National Forest files.

155. This is correct. All density estimates are in the Coronado National

Forest files.

156. Habitat characteristics, topography, elevation and a subjective

estimate of long—term densities were used to make the estimate. Food

resources are extremely difficult to estimate and were not used in

the equation.

157. Red squirrel density estimates should remain approximately the same

in the same quality of habitat. It is assumed that the habitat

determines long—term red squirrel density. Thus, as forest structure

changes, red squirrel densities will change.

158. This statement does not require citations to validate it.

159. Wide variations in yearly cone crop production occur in conifer

species. Each conifer species has its own cycles and overall cone

crops depend on the cone production level of each species present in

the area.

160. The red squirrel population cannot increase over the winter as there

is no reproduction and no immigration from other ranges. Estimates

for June 1991 overlap with estimates from October 1990, indicating

high over-winter survival. Any perceived increase in population over

169
the winter is likely due to red squirrel movements between areas ~.n

the Pinalenos.

161. No. The sentence refers to one conifer species out of the several

that may be in the habitat.

162. Data on population modeling is in the Coronado National Forest files.

163. wording is correct as written.

164. Yes, the probability of extinction is much higher but determining

certainty of the event is problematic.

165. This paper had been submitted to more than one journal at the time

the draft recovery plan was developed.

166. Reductions or removals of Abert’s squirrels from the Pinalenos will

depend upon the results of competition studies. The degree of threat

to the red squirrel posed by the Abert’s squirrel will be determined

in those studies.

167. Response times are dependent upon many factors and may be shorter or

longer than stated as a result.

168. The USFS does not have specific acres or hectares lost in each fire

over the last 40 years.

169. Maximum carrying capacity assumes that food resources are not

limiting at that level. Distribution of red squirrels is important

for evaluating effective breeding population and other parameters,

but we have no data showing its relevance here.

170. Designation of management zones provides a framework to define the

needs of similar and different habitats and allow for differing uses

and controls.

171. Re—population or restoration habitat is habitat currently not in

excellent condition that will be restored to its highest potential

quality for red squirrels as part of this plan.

172. Defined in narrative of step—down outline.

173. Measures will be identified and implemented as appropriate.

174. Essential habitat is defined at response 140. Critical habitat is

defined in the Endangered Species Act as “...(i) the specific areas

within the geographic areas occupied by the species, at the time it

is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act,

on which are found those physical and biological features (I)

essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may

require special management considerations or protections; and (ii)

specific areas outside the geographical areas occupied by the species

at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section

4 of this Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas

are essential for the conservation of the species.”

175. Thinning is a silvicultural technique which, along with other

techniques, may be included in the reforestation plan. That plan

will contain any objectives for which thinning is the prescribed

tool.

176. Mapping is a necessary component of any quantitative habitat

evaluation.

170
177. Several agencies have responsibility for the red squirrel and all

should be participants in this program.

178. Use of information from Mannan and Smith (1991) is assumed in this

statement.

179. Use of the word “wild” is appropriate in the event that a captive

population is established.

180. Fire is the most likely catastrophe to occur. Emergency plan

development would include other potential problems, such as tree

disease outbreaks, that may affect red squirrel habitat.

181. Signs included in this category are for the displays in the

interpretive center. Those in section 312 are for roads, trailheads

and campgrounds.

182. The paragraph defines the desired future condition of the forest

based on all currently available knowledge and research. Specific

management recommendations made by Mannan and Smith (1991) were

incorporated whenever possible. The number of snags and logs per

hectare was developed by the Recovery Team, taking Mannan and Smith’s

(1991) work, as well as fuels, loading for fire danger, into account.

The paragraph is consistent with earlier discussions of habitat

quality.

183. Zone 1 was defined on the basis of midden densities (at least 2

middens per hectare) as determined using the then current midden

maps. All boundaries other than those bordering Zone 1 were based on

aerial photography and/or personal knowledge of the topography. The

boundaries between zones are approximate and will be better clarified

using vegetation maps as soon as they are available and ground

inspections.

Red squirrel densities vary considerably among years depending upon

many factors. As discussed earlier, density is not the best

indicator of habitat quality, especially short—term densities of

animals. The Recovery Team determined that midden density is the

most reliable criteria of habitat quality available at the current

time.

Sensitivity to disturbance in Zone 1 is based on: 1) past reports of

direct disturbance to middens, such as from the University of Arizona

Monitoring Team (data in Coronado National Forest files) and other

researchers; and 2) current knowledge of midden locations in

relationship to indirect disturbances such as removal of dead and

downed material from campgrounds.

184. These are assumed to be dispersal corridors since they are between

two areas of occupied habitat. Since we do not know anything about

red squirrel dispersal, this is speculation, as we a.ndicated by the

word “assumed”.

185. The two telescopes currently being built should have been included in

Zone 7. The master map includes Heliograph Peak communications area

in Zone 7. Because the Columbine summer home area and the Bible Camp

may, depending on future studies, be recovered as red squirrel

habitat, they were not included in Zone 7.

186. The recovery plan is a broad—based planning document. It exists to

direct agency efforts to develop specific actions from the broad

concepts presented. The implementation phase is where the specific

studies, programs and management plans are developed.

171
187. The FWS supports behind the biological information used in the

listing of the red squirrel as endangered. The recovery plan does

not call for additional access restrictions beyond those imposed by

the Arizona—Idaho Conservation Act.

188. Fires have affected mixed conifer forests of unknown habitat quality.

The fire history of the three forest types is not currently known,

but there are ongoing studies exploring these issues.

189. Information on acreage logged or deforested in each forest type is

not available. The USFS has done preliminary work on reforestation.

Questions regarding that effort should be directed to them.

190. The map used in the recovery plan was copied directly from

Hoffmeister’s (1986) range map. The exact accuracy of the scale is

not known. Red squirrels may be found in areas of suitable habitat

outside of the concentrations of location records on the map. These

dots do not represent all records of red squirrels in those habitats.

191. No middens have yet been dropped from the survey pooi. Decisions on

how middens will be dropped will be made during implementation.

192. The FWS does not know if the USFS has any baseline data on recreation

use of the upper elevations of the Pinalenos. If this information

does exist, it should be used in the recreation plan.

193. Comments will be referenced for inclusion in the recreation plan.

194. A final report on the supplemental feeding program has not been

received by the FWS.

195. It is appropriate in a discussion of population viability to

extrapolate to the future condition. This is speculation, and

language has been added to reflect that those figures do not assume

any habitat losses over the period.

196. The goal of the habitat management efforts is to restore the forests

to a normal successional cycle. This does not mean that all areas in

the Pinalenos would be directed toward old growth forest. The needs

of meadow and younger forest stand—dwelling species will be addressed

in all appropriate plans.

197. The recovery plan should include as many potential management actions

as possible. During the implementation of the plan, decisions on the

appropriateness of any action will be addressed. The USFS does have

data on the supplemental feeding effort from 1989 but has not

finalized a report.

172